How does the Sigma 105 F/2.8 EX DOS macro compare to Tamron Sp 90 F/2.8

[JBW]

Hi, The reason I ask is that the Sigma is on sale at a price that makes them close in cost if not in quality.
Brian

[george013]

Hi, The reason I ask is that the Sigma is on sale at a price that makes them close in cost if not in quality.
Brian

A site I always use. They've tested both lenses on a Canon EOS.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...ceosff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...seosff?start=1

If you've a crop camera, then pay more attention to the sharpness in the center. If you've a FF camera, also look at the differences between center and border/extreme.

George

[DanK]

Brian,

Assuming they are similar in quality--I don't know if they are--I would also consider focal length and weight. For your purposes, the extra 15 mm would be helpful, but at the same time, lighter would be better. If the weight is not given on the site George mentioned, you can get it on the B&H website.

Photozone has this conclusion about the Sigma: "it is slightly superior to the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS". That is very high praise. My main macro lens is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS, and it is a truly superb lens.

[JBW]

A site I always use. They've tested both lenses on a Canon EOS.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...ceosff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...seosff?start=1

If you've a crop camera, then pay more attention to the sharpness in the center. If you've a FF camera, also look at the differences between center and border/extreme.

George

If I understood it correctly Sigma comes out slightly ahead. At thirty percent off it begins to look reasonable.

[JBW]

Brian,

Assuming they are similar in quality--I don't know if they are--I would also consider focal length and weight. For your purposes, the extra 15 mm would be helpful, but at the same time, lighter would be better. If the weight is not given on the site George mentioned, you can get it on the B&H website.

Photozone has this conclusion about the Sigma: "it is slightly superior to the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS". That is very high praise. My main macro lens is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS, and it is a truly superb lens.

and if I read the numbers correctly it is slightly better than the Tamron. But without the 30% sale it is a bot pricey for my wallet

[Black Pearl]

In the real world (not shooting flat test charts in the studio) you are never going to see a difference between them in terms of optical quality. There is a 3mm difference in their closest focus distance which you'd need to be really particular about to notice and absurdly anal to get concerned over. The Tamron is lighter and is listed as being weather sealed which might (depending on how you go about shooting) help your decision but otherwise I would say it comes down to which is the better price.

[JBW]

In the real world (not shooting flat test charts in the studio) you are never going to see a difference between them in terms of optical quality. There is a 3mm difference in their closest focus distance which you'd need to be really particular about to notice and absurdly anal to get concerned over. The Tamron is lighter and is listed as being weather sealed which might (depending on how you go about shooting) help your decision but otherwise I would say it comes down to which is the better price.

Even with 30% off the tamron is much less expensive.

[Manfred M]

Brian - while price considerations are often the most important aspect of buying a piece of equipment (and this applies to things other than photo gear as well), I use a fairly pragmatic approach:

1. What is the MINIMUM level of performance I will be satisfied with? If the item does not meet that level, I won't even consider buying it.

2. How much difference does the additional cost of the second piece of gear make in real world use (I look at spec sheets and reports, but probably less than a lot of other people)? Lab tests are done using heavy duty tripods in a test environment I will never be shooting in anyways.

3. Is the difference in real world performance worth the difference in price between the two products I am comparing? If the answer is no, then I will buy the less expensive of the two and if it is yes, then the more expensive item gets bought.

[JBW]

Brian - while price considerations are often the most important aspect of buying a piece of equipment (and this applies to things other than photo gear as well), I use a fairly pragmatic approach:

1. What is the MINIMUM level of performance I will be satisfied with? If the item does not meet that level, I won't even consider buying it.

2. How much difference does the additional cost of the second piece of gear make in real world use (I look at spec sheets and reports, but probably less than a lot of other people)? Lab tests are done using heavy duty tripods in a test environment I will never be shooting in anyways.

3. Is the difference in real world performance worth the difference in price between the two products I am comparing? If the answer is no, then I will buy the less expensive of the two and if it is yes, then the more expensive item gets bought.

And there you have the real world down side to where I live.

I have no hands in way of determining what minimum level will make me happy because there is no way to get a hands on experience with the equipment in question. This applies to your second point as well.

Your third point is why I asked the question. B&H has a really good sale on the Sigma right now. The Tamron is still $150 U.S. cheaper but if there is a big difference in quality that would be ok.

B&H declares the Tamron is THE top rated macro for the Sony A mount. The consensus that is building here is that the Sigma and Tamron are very similar in quality with ech one having small advantages in different areas.

The tamron is half the weight, no image stabilization, take pictures as good (to my eyes) as the Sigma and gives me a serious upgrade at a good price.

Odds are good I will go with the Tamron

[Manfred M]

I have no hands in way of determining what minimum level will make me happy because there is no way to get a hands on experience with the equipment in question. This applies to your second point as well.

I wrote my response in such a way that assumed this was the case, Brian. You had previously identified a lens that you thought would work for you and now you have brought another one into play. I'll be perfectly frank. Most of the lenses I have bought were based on a particular need and I rarely had the opportunity to do much if any testing. In fact the majority of my lenses were bought online and the first time I touched one was when I unboxed it.

I was thinking more along the lines of what you had posted regarding the Tamron (I assume nothing in your requirements has changed).

1. There is little difference to you in terms of functional needs between the two lenses. The 15mm difference in focal length is neither here nor there, but given your mobility issues, that slightly longer reach of the Sigma would be a small advantage.

2. You are primarily planning to shoot macro with this lens. Macro on a tripod means you don't need a stabilized lens. This adds cost to the Sigma in a way that will not impact the quality of your images at all. I also believe Sony uses in body stabilization, so the point is rather moot anyways. This would tend to favour going Tamron and if you need stabilization, you would use the in-camera anyways and have one less less that can break. The one Sigma lens I do own had the in-lens stabilization system fail and it had to be returned to Sigma for warranty work.

3. Lower weight is good if you are mobility impaired.

4. You have often complained about seeing issues. To get the extra quality out of the Sigma, you would have to be able to nail the focus consistently. Macro shooters tend to (for a good reason) focus manually, so you need to keep this in mind.

5. Could you use the money you save on a less expensive lens be put to use on another piece of camera gear you don't own?


That is really the gist of my thinking here...

[rpcrowe]

I am not saying that either of your lens choices is better than another. This is just a general statement of my philosophy regarding selecting photo gear..

The "5% Rule" goes for photo gear as well as other purchases. Often one piece of gear provides a 5% improvement in quality over another piece of gear. However sometimes the piece of gear is far more than 5% more expensive. In real-life shooting, will you ever see the difference between the two pieces of gear? Probably not!

Often the deciding factors for me are:

1. Price - which is always the final deciding factor unless you are earning money with the gear...

2. Build - the build is often over-rated unless you plan to use the gear in some compromising situations like many photojournalists encounter...

3. Finally: Ease and enjoyment while using the equipment.
As an example, I really like the two dial system of many Canon xD and xxD far better than the menu driven system of many other cameras.
Next: I don't like using a camera with only an LCD viewfinder nor do I generally like electronic viewfinders or power zoom lenses...
As a final example, I did not like the lens hood on the first version of the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens because it was pretty nearly impossible to rotate a circular polarizer with the hood attached; nor did I like the push pull zoom. Instead I shot with either a 300mm or 400mm lens on one camera and my 70-200mm lens on a second camera. Now I am getting older and the thought of using a single camera (with a second camera safely in my vehicle) for events like airshows and various sports seemed more alluring. The access window on the 100-400mm f/4,5-5.6L IS II lens along with the rotating zoom helped me decide to replace the two long fixed focal length lens and my 70-200mm zoom with that single zoom. I am very happy using my new lens but, I will still keep my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens for when I want a lighter weight, although shorter, telephoto.

Since you will probably not have the opportunity for real world testing of either lens, you might peruse the feedback comments on the two lenses and find out if there is something important that you might not like about either lens.

OTOH: you might have your Canadian relative purchase a used Tamron 90mm lens. eBay might not be the best idea but, B&H and other sites have reputable used gear for sale ans they might have a used copy of either lens...

[DanK]

The tamron is half the weight, no image stabilization, take pictures as good (to my eyes) as the Sigma and gives me a serious upgrade at a good price.

A couple of points. First, I agree with Robin that the quality differences are not likely to be substantial. The reviews of nearly all current macro lenses that I have read have been very good. I think either of these lenses will be capable of macro images vastly better than your current equipment can produce.

The weight could be a very big deal. Keep in mind that even tiny motions can ruin a macro shot. Lighter gear is easier to hold steady.

Re image stabilization: conventional image stabilization corrects for angular motion and therefore doesn't help all that much when you are at macro distances. Canon's hybrid IS also controls for motion parallel to the sensor, which DOES matter a lot at macro distances, but I don't know of anything comparable by other manufacturers, and AFAIK, Canon offers it only on one of its macro lenses. Bottom line is that I doubt this feature will matter much.

As someone who does a lot of macro, I have a hunch that you could spend that $150, if you have it to spend, in other ways that would be more helpful for macro photography than any difference between these lenses. For example, for that amount, you could buy a good lightweight monopod with an inexpensive tilt head (the cheap tilt heads are also lightweight), and that would be a huge help--at least, it is a huge help for me--in keeping things steady enough for macro work with bugs, which often don't stand still long enough to use a tripod. A cheap, maybe used TTL flash, to which you could add a home-made diffuser, would also be a huge help in bug-hunting. Flowers, of course, are a different matter.

[JBW]

Dan, what you say makes a lot of sense and also summarizes much of what has been said by others quite nicely. And as Grumpy pointed out my Sony comes with image stabilization so i don't need it in the lens as well. When I asked B&H which would work better they suggested the sigma because of its slightly longer reach and image stabilization. I'm not sure that from 90 to 105 is a game breaker and certainly the image stabilization isn't. If they dropped the price to be equal to the Tamron it would be a tough choice. But at half the weight, much less money and as far as I can tell equal i.q the tamron is still in first place.

Now it is time for a newbies question.

I used to use a long walking stick as a monopod for my Fujifilm. I found that the Sony was that little bit bigger and heavier so I moved from the stick to a tripod. I often fold the legs in and use it as a monopod. Albeit a rather thick monopod but it works quite nicely. Would there be any advantage to getting a 'real' monopod?

[rpcrowe]

The advantage as I see it might be that the "real" monopod can be adjusted in height which could be critical to placing your camera/lens in the best position for macro work.

[Manfred M]

Brian - this is definitely a personal choice. I have a monopod, but haven't touched it in years, but that is really related to the subject matter I shoot. I tend to be either a hand-held or tripod shooter. If I were more into shooting sports and events, I would probably revert to a monopod, just because there isn't enough space to use a tripod and hand-holding isn't good enough.

For the type of shooting you do, I would be 100% on tripod.

[DanK]

For the type of shooting you do, I would be 100% on tripod.

I'm not sure. For the flowers Brian shoots, I would use a tripod. But Brian also shoots bugs, and I find my tripod pretty much worthless for bugs.

I use a monopod for that in part for the reason Richard gave, which is the speed with which I can change the height. It's also lighter, although the head I use is heavy and offsets a lot of that advantage.

[rtbaum]

Brian, I wouldn't mind weighing in to the discussion. I use all of my lenses for flower photography. I sat down today and shot a few to illustrate the possibilities available. They all unprocessed, other than to size for posting. I tried to maintain a level of consistency with all shots


Nikon 300mm f4 PF ED, ISO 100, f5.6, 3 sec


Sigma 400mm f5.6 Telemacro, ISO 100, f5.6, 2 sec


Tamron 90mm Macro f2.8, ISO 100, f5.6, 3 sec


My first real lens, after my 'starter' lens , was the macro. I spent about a year shooting exclusively with this lens, we became close friends.

After a year, I yearned to begin shooting birds and bought the Sigma 400mm telemacro....no stabilization (Boy was THAT an education! I would still encounter flowers that had to be captured...and learned that the lens did a pretty good job on flowers!

Last year, I picked up the Nikon 300mm PF......with IS ....I can now shoot birds, flowers, bugs with impunity....handheld.

I say these things, not to show off my collection of lenses, but to say that:
1) Using a telephoto can do a respectable job for a lot of situations, it is usable for flowers, has the reach for insects, and of
course there are the birdies. The darn Sigma 400mm is pretty inexpensive as well.
2) If you do decide to go the macro route, I wanted to assure you that the Tamron 90mm is a fine lens. Macrophotography of
flowers is a lot of fun....bugs keep moving out of focus for me and make me tear my hair out


All of these shots were shot with a tripod...it is a must in my opinion, especially when you begin stacking...and you will!!

One more shot that only the macro could do



see the finished product here: Processed to Judy's Specifications

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure. For the flowers Brian shoots, I would use a tripod. But Brian also shoots bugs, and I find my tripod pretty much worthless for bugs.

I use a monopod for that in part for the reason Richard gave, which is the speed with which I can change the height. It's also lighter, although the head I use is heavy and offsets a lot of that advantage.

Dan - Brian's photographic needs are a bit different than for most of the rest of us. He has had MS for a long time and this affects his balance, his motor skills and his vision. This means he shoots in a way that gives him decent results, but also means he is unable to shoot the way most people would. He has mentioned that he shoots using a tripod, while sitting on a small stool and has to rely on autofocus in situations where others would go to manual focus. He will tend to use the screen on his camera rather than the viewfinder. While he has tried shooting tethered and finds that this helps, he does not want to risk damaging his laptop by using it outside in his garden. Like other people with MS, he has good days and bad days, so this affects what he can accomplish with his camera on a given day and explains why he has somewhat variable results.

My answers to Brian tend to take this information he has shared with us and try to tailor my responses with his specific needs and how he deals with them in mind.

[JBW]

The advantage as I see it might be that the "real" monopod can be adjusted in height which could be critical to placing your camera/lens in the best position for macro work.

So can my tripod and if I only have one leg extended it is no slower than a mono.

[Manfred M]

So can my tripod and if I only have one leg extended it is no slower than a mono.

And of course you can switch back to using it as a tripod quickly by dropping the extended leg. Your technique makes a lot of sense to me, given how you are shooting.