D800 Macro Lens

[Ksanti]

Hey guys, the D800 swap (rather than D700) swap is looking pretty much certain. I've been using a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 for my Macro stuff on my 5D, but I'm not sure how the Tamron performs on as high resolution a sensor as that of the D800? Dxomark hasn't tested lenses on the D800 yet as far as I know and I'm not sure on their macro lens testing?

Is there anything really worth the cost over the Tamron in terms of value for money? I realise the first party ones are better but obviously the 90mm outresolves my 5D in the right circumstances - I'm just not sure by how much and if using it on the D800 would only result in me getting about 15MP of detail? Though I don't do a huge amount of macro specific work, most of my big prints (30*20) were taken with the 90mm and I'd like to go even bigger with the D800, I'm just not sure what to get?

Are there older Nikon macro lenses AF-D etc. that are bargains or, optically speaking (not fussed with VR or AF speed etc.), is there not that much higher you could go short of, say, a Zeiss 100 f/2?

 

[Ksanti]

Before someone jumps down my throat, I /would/ have posted this in a spec me or Nikon thread, but then we don't have one

 

[Ksanti]

I almost exclusively use a tripod and natural light for my macro work is the thing. It very rarely tends to be work with animals and insects - more often dew drops, spider webs or water forms etc. which don't tend to move. It would be an extra £400 for the sake of VR and maybe what seems to be a marginal bit of sharpness - plus over half a stop more vignetting and more distortion than the Tamron.

Thing is, I don't fully understand the DXOMark tests - are the figures given wide open only for resolution etc.? Macro lenses are almost invariably sharper than most others, but then tested on the D3X, DXOMark tells me that the Sigma 85 has about 16MP of detail compared to the Tamron macro getting 13MP of detail? That surely makes no sense?

Resolving 13MP on a 24MP FF sensor seems worrying on a macro lens unless there are some weird reasons why Macro lenses don't get rated as sharp on Dxomark? That said, the Nikon 105 only resolved 16MP according to them so I'm really not sure on that front...

 

[Ksanti]

Well DXO say the Nikon 85 1.4G is 19mp, as I'v compared the Sigma 85 to it, and the Nikon was a touch sharper, I would say DXO's scores sounds about right.

Oh those I don't doubt, but my point is how do they test it that would disadvantage the macro lenses so much? Would they have tested them at closer focusing distances meaning more stuff is out of focus which could have been interpreted by an algorithm (again, don't know the ins and outs of their testing) as softness?

I don't doubt the Nikon 105 is sharper than the Tamron 90, nor that the Nikon 85 is sharper than the Sigma 85. What I'm confused about is how the Nikon 105 Macro is supposedly softer than the 85 1.4, which it plainly isn't?

 

[Ksanti]

Well when you say can't resolve a D800's resolution what do you mean? Because if you go by not resolving as high as the MP count under comparing lenses then nothing outresolves anything - you'll very rarely find a lens on a 12MP camera, say, scoring anything over 9MP of detail.

 

[Ksanti]

Okay will do, Rhys, but I was always under the impression that seeing as macro lenses basically have two absolute priorities - sharpness and 1:1 magnification, I was just thrown by the idea that the 85s are sharper.

 

[Ksanti]

Have any of you guys used the new Tamron 90mm? The VC one? The samples on ephotozine look awesome and I imagine after a couple of months it will fall in price.
http://www.magezinepublishing.com/e.../highres/Tamron90mmVCimgs32876_1353938977.jpg

Once I'm a little more knowledgeable on it all I'll probably make a decision. I might just get a second hand non VC Tamron as a stop-gap (I need to prioritise the 35 and 85 lengths over macro) then later on decide if I need to make the jump up to the new model, a Nikon or even a Zeiss (rarely do I shoot beyond 1:3 magnification with my current work).