Thanx Guys.
Rob,to me its worth the switch, but i highly doubt the majority would agree.
Things i really like with it compared to the Tamron
*Build
The build is simply heads and shoulders above the plastic tamron.
*Sharpness
As i felt with the 60mm/2,8 micro, the 105/2,8 outrenders the tamron when it comes to pure detail.
*Contrast/colors
The contrast is much more appealing to me, even though it can be a little to much in some situations.
*AF
much less hunting and so much faster.
*VR
While this is not that useful for 1:1 macro, its till nice to be able to shoot closeups handheld.
So what did i prefer with the tamron ?
*Focus ring
The manual focus ring, is a little smother and very easy to move in small incraments, the Nikkor is much nice to hold, but its not as lose as the tamron. For manual focus, i prefer a very lose ring that i can just move with my pinky finger.
*OOF bg
"Bokeh" to me is a little bit smoother with the Tamron, havent used the 105/2,8 all that much but from what iv seen thus far it looks like it. Spring time will tell for sure.
So in the end is it worth to swith to the Nikkor 105/2,8 VR if you have the tamron ? No not for most people.
But if you plan to use it for more then macro, lets say portraits and medium tele ? well then the Nikkor surely beats the Tamron, since its much more versatile.
Its sharper wide open, and focus much faster. throw in the Vr and its quite attractive.
But for manual focus macro (1:1) the tamron is equal at least.
More pictures coming soon.
/Paul L.