Nikon 60mm + 105mm or just Tamron 90mm

Hi

I own the Nikon 60mm and it is a terrific piece of glass for macro. However, sometimes (those pygmy seahorses moment), I feel that I need some additional working distance, hence the 105mm. The good news is I already have ports for it.

Then I discover the Tamron 90mm Di and I wonder if I would prefer this as an in-between lens rather than owning both the 60mm and 105mm. Afterall I cannot change lens underwater so instead of fighting btw the 60mm (more versatile) and the 105mm (more working distance), I'll just fit my DSLR with the 90mm everytime for macro.....

My current Ikelite ports do not fit the 90mm, so if I were to buy it, I would have to sell my Nikon 60mm macro lens, Ikelite flat port for 60mm, and normal flat port + flat port with focus for 105mm. This will more than pay for a Tamron 90mm Di and the flat port for it.

The alternative would be to come out with nett cash to purchase the 105mm.

What would you fellas suggest?

Cheers,

Eric

I shoot the Tamron 90 (not Di) with my 10D, behind a flat port and with Woody's external diopter (www.nexusamerica.com) I can get VERY close to pygmies...check out my avatar, that's an uncropped shot of a pygmy shot this past January...and on my desktop, that's slightly bigger than life size for a pygmy!

The image also hangs as a 20x30 print in my home.

Stu

p.s. It's probably one of the sharpest lenses made....

I think like most things the answer depends upon how you plan to use the two lenses. What do you do with the 60mm? Do you use it as a true macro lens or just as a fish portrait lens? How do you plan to use the 105mm or the 90mm? How much do you value space/weight vs having the right tool for the job?

The way I shoot I see the 60mm and 105mm as two very different tools. I shoot the 60mm as a "Fish Portrait" lens. at 1-2 meters (the maximum effective range of my strobes) the 60mm gives me just the right field of view to shoot the heads-to full bodies of most medium sized fish. I don't consider it a true macro lens because the working distance to get to 1:1 and beyond is much too short for most subjects. Christmas Tree worms etc disappear once I get to the 8" required for 1:1. I treat it as a very sharp medium lens.

The 105m to me is the true macro lens. the 12" of working distance is much better for getting the small stuff. I think it would be pretty hard to use this as a fish portrait lens with strobes for decent sized subjects (parotfish size) and still get good lighting. "The Doctor" had an article on using this lens as a telephoto lens essentially as a fish portrait lens at long range, and I think its an interesting idea, but I think this is a more specialized application. It will be fun to try that technique. Generally these distances are too far to light adequately and generally you want strobes for good color not natural light.

In my mind the 90mm is pretty close to the 105mm in terms of field of view. I would use them pretty much interchangebly. I have heard very good reviews of this lens and I think quality and sharpness would be excellent. But I don't think it fits the bill as an in-between lens. The working distance at 1:1 is 11.5" which is very close to the 105mm.

The main disadvantage of this lens from an Ikelite housing point of view is that unlike the 105mm it doesn't allow you to change from AF to MF underwater. I think you might have trouble autofocusing with this lens so it would be nice to switch when you wanted to. Of course you could just use it in manual all the time too.

stu: I cannot see your avatar at all Can u post a bigger pic?

newbie : I use the 60mm to shoot everything except wide angle - macro, closeups, fish portraits. The only time I feel the need of a 105mm is the pygmy seahorses moment....I dive only like 2 trips each year. Outside of diving, I have no use for the 105mm (i don't shoot insects) at all while the 60mm can still serve as a portrait lens for shooting my new born son. I have heard the 90mm being quite a decent portrait lens as well, hence the thought of selling the 60mm and getting the 90mm to serve as an in-between for the 60mm and 105mm......

tks both of u for your inputs.

Would really appreciate someone here to post some uncropped pics taken with the Tamron 90mm.

Eric

Kthan,

Here's a shot of an Ocellaris Anemone fish with the Tamron 90mm, a 36x24 print is hanging in my office....

Here is a full frame shot of a pygmy seahorse taken with the Tamron 90 and Woody's external diopter. A 20x30 print hangs in my home....

Note: All shots are done with Auto Focus, with the current AF sensors of both Nikon and Canon, shooting MF is simply adding a complication to an already difficult endeavor. In 8 years of shooting housed systems, I've always used AF.

Here's a crop of the eye of the seahorse....

At this magnification, the full size shot would be 36x24.

Stu

Stu, amazing!!!

kthan,

Thanks! given your proximity to the Philippines, you might want to try diving the Anilao and Puerto Galera areas.

Can't be beat for all forms of UW photo ops.

Stu

I vote the 105. Used one for 20+ years. Stick to Nikon. Mark

then again, Similans, Manado, Lembeh, Bali, Sulu Sea, Sipadan, Sangalaki are only max 6 hrs away.

I cropped my pics (i cheated), so my range of subjects for the 60mm is fairly wide. Just prefered slightly more working distance sometimes.

attached are my subjects for the 60mm.

Very Nice!

stu