Short review:
The lens does not have problems with the electronics of Nikon D7100.
The autofocus is s. Softly and fail with all autofocus points.
Excellent sharpness even at F / 2.8 (in the center).
No forward or back focus (as with Sigma 105mm)
Distortion and vignetting can not be determined, centering OK.
The image stabilization is a tremendous image-jerk (not always, but again and again), he is barely audible and works quite well:
crisp images even at 1 / 15sec. (Sec with support of the camera even at 1.).
Compared with outstanding Nikkor 18-105mm set to 90mm:
(Always - Distance 4m, ISO 100 and compared only in the center of the image)
- At Tamron 1/200 sec. and F / 3 (F / 2.8 until 6m executable even when "Aperture
Code "or" Manual "- typical of Nikon - can me someone short and
sonnenklar explain?).
- With Nikkor 1/60 sec. and F / 5.6 (at 90mm Smallest Aperture).
Picture from Tamron is brighter, much sharper and show more detail.
That's it: Tamron remains!
I finally tested the Nikon Nikkor 40mm macro and 7100 to the Sigma 105 Macro.
This Nikkor 40mm macro was only marginally better than Nikkor 18-105 at 40mm.
The distance to the object at 1 For me personally was: 1 macro too small.
The Sigma 105 F / 2.8 was too heavy for me.
The image stabilizer was very loud.
The lens has slight prefocus.
Centralization was not entirely accurate.
And a good piece has not quite understood perfectly with the electronics of the camera.
The Tamron 90mm F / 2.8 VC USD I have, because of excessive introductory price, at first not considered (although I had earlier with its predecessor and Canon 20D much fun).
Now at 435 but I ordered him tried and built for rational, properly adjusted, easy, accurate and economically approved.
