Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm Macro

ESiggins · October 10, 2006

So I found a non "DG" Sigma 105mm macro brand new for $300. I was gonna go with a Tamron 90mm because of the rave reviews it gets, but it's $450 new (after a rebate) and I can't find a used one. The Sigma seems to test well also, but it doesn't get the raves that the Tamron does. If I save some money and grab the Sigma will I be disapointed? I'd consider a used non-VR nikkor 105 if anyone knows where to find one, but the VR is out of my range.

The only other thing to consider is that I'm also getting the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 so I can have a low light, fast focus lens and the 105 on the Sigma would be slightly less redundant than the 90mm Tamron, but it's a matter of taking one step forward or back, so not really a big deal. Thanks,

Fred.

BigAl · October 10, 2006

If you are going to use the lens for macro work with manual focus, the Sigma is great (I know I have one - check the galleries in my sig). If you're going to want to use autofocus on either the Sigma or the Tamron, you're going to be disappointed at the speed of focus.

ESiggins · October 10, 2006

Thanks for the tip, bro. I'm not expecting the AF to be fast (although accurate would be nice). I like your shot of the mantis on the stereo.

ballentphoto · October 10, 2006

ESiggins wrote:

So I found a non "DG" Sigma 105mm macro brand new for $300. I was gonna go with a Tamron 90mm because of the rave reviews it gets, but it's $450 new (after a rebate) and I can't find a used one. The Sigma seems to test well also, but it doesn't get the raves that the Tamron does. If I save some money and grab the Sigma will I be disapointed? I'd consider a used non-VR nikkor 105 if anyone knows where to find one, but the VR is out of my range.

The only other thing to consider is that I'm also getting the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 so I can have a low light, fast focus lens and the 105 on the Sigma would be slightly less redundant than the 90mm Tamron, but it's a matter of taking one step forward or back, so not really a big deal. Thanks,

Fred.

I have never heard anyone say anything bad about that Tamron. It gets universal praise, and it would probably be the one of the few non Nikkors I would consider (yeah I'm a lens snob

)

ESiggins · October 10, 2006

ballentphoto wrote:

I have never heard anyone say anything bad about that Tamron. It gets universal praise, and it would probably be the one of the few non Nikkors I would consider (yeah I'm a lens snob )

Right. That's the only reason I even ask. If the Sigma got that sort of praise I would't hesitate to buy it and save $150.

ziggy53 · October 10, 2006

ESiggins wrote:

... If the Sigma got that sort of praise I would't hesitate to buy it and save $150.

Plenty of praise here:

http://www.photographyreview.com/sf-1/pid-25237994/befid-96323/productreviewscrx.aspx

This guy says it's "too sharp" for portrait work, and has issues with focus speed and the lens hood. (I would bet the contrast is too much for portrait work, and that can be accomodated in software. I don't believe there is ever too much sharpness, IMHO.) He does admit that if you set the distance limiter to either macro mode or distance mode, the focus speed is acceptable. He also solved his hood problems.

http://www.camerahacker.com/sigma_105_ex/

PopPhoto says (DG version tested), "CONCLUSION: An outstanding macro lens that delivers creditable performance at lifesize magnification as well as fine image quality at normal focusing distances."

http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/PP1204_SigmaLensTest.pdf

I guess there is abundant praise to be found, in addition to the tests at Photozone, PhotoDo and LensPlay:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_105_28_nikon/index.htm
http://www.photodo.com/product_438.html
http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=85

Examples at PhotoSIG and PBase:
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse;jsessionid=a7gOQabXA1G_18Mr04?id=32454
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/105_28_ex_dg_macro
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/105_28_ex_macro

I am never afraid to spend money when it counts, but the Sigma 105mm, f2.8EX Macro appears to be a wonderful lens at a reasonable price. The Tamron 90mm SP DA, f2.8 Macro is also a wonderful lens, and it only costs a bit more, but seems to hold its value pretty well.

I would suggest ordering one of them from a place that has both and has a reasonable return/exchange policy. Then you might be out some shipping costs is all in return for trying the lens out.

ziggy53

ESiggins · October 11, 2006

Ziggy, you're a hero. Thanks for all the brilliant resources. I think buying from a reputable place where I can get an excahge is a brilliant idea. No risk except for some shipping charges, which would be less than renting the thing anyway. Ta very much,

Fred.

BigAl · October 11, 2006

ESiggins wrote:

Right. That's the only reason I even ask. If the Sigma got that sort of praise I would't hesitate to buy it and save $150.

I think praise should come from what you see. You should check out LordV's galleries. The first few pages of pics were all taken with a non-DG version of the Sigma 105. Somewhere in this year he got a Canon MPE-65, but he's still using the 105 fairly regularly.

Good luck with your decision!

ps: thanks for comment on my audiophile mantis!

ESiggins · October 11, 2006

BigAl wrote:

The first few pages of pics were all taken with a non-DG version of the Sigma 105.

That's enough for me! Ordering...

Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm Macro

Comments