Which macro to buy

[CRP626]

I'm torn between the Tamron 90mm ($400 after $60 rebate) and the Sigma 105mm ($479). Any helpful suggestions?

[acedrew]

The Sigma 70mm is the best macro lens on the market period, it has some of the best optics ever produced, the 105mm is not very far behind. A friend recently got the 105mm and it is a joy to use! Check dslrgear.com for great lens reviews and tests, compare the 2. I am willing to bet the Sigma will be a better build quality than the Tamron as well...

Andrew Rodgers
Perfected Perspectives -- Photography by Andrew Rodgers | Andrew Rodgers (acedrew) on Twitter | Login | Facebook

[Nicole]

I have and like the Sigma. I've heard really good things about the Tamron, but the Sigma was what I could find and afford at the time. I'd also suggest looking on Flickr to see what kind of pictures / what quality pictures are being taken with each lens.

The only thing I will say about the Sigma is that when you're trying to focus at 1:1 the lens extends a lot. It would probably be nicer if it were internal focus, but, I still like the lens.

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by acedrew

The Sigma 70mm is the best macro lens on the market period

No it's not. I can think of several that I'd rather have

[CaptainNH]

I know it's in a completely different price bracket, but a a Canon shooter, I have to put a bid in for the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.

It's heaven in a tube and next on my shopping list !

[acedrew]

I'm just referring to the optical quality, not personal opinion, or build quality, dslrgear.com has the test results, check it out, it's flatter than Dick Cheneys EKG...

Also as for the Loooong extension you're referring to, that's actually a great thing, it gives a much finer focus mechanism in the macro range, and outside of the macro range it extends less than a cm.


Andrew Rodgers
Perfected Perspectives -- Photography by Andrew Rodgers | Andrew Rodgers (acedrew) on Twitter | Login | Facebook

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by acedrew

I'm just referring to the optical quality, not personal opinion, or build quality, dslrgear.com has the test results, check it out, it's flatter than Dick Cheneys EKG...

I did just that.
Sigma 70mm macro got 8.89 for image quality

Canon MP-E 65mm got 9.8 for image quality

I've had the pleasure of using them and many more macro lenses - the MP-E is in a different league. Not that any of them are bad lenses but not one of them is the best in every situation.

My own personal preference out of the OP's short list is the Tamron 90mm. I'm not so keen on the Sigma 105mm but may well consider the Sigma 70mm, especially if I wanted to increase the magnification using extension tubes and wasn't fussed about being very close to the subject.

[fredzilla]

Originally Posted by CaptainNH

I know it's in a completely different price bracket, but a a Canon shooter, I have to put a bid in for the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.

It's heaven in a tube and next on my shopping list !

Save your money for the Canon L series lens mentioned above. Just got one and paid dearly for it but it is in my opinion well worth the money.
Macro :: IMG_2528.jpg picture by phredzilla - Photobucket
Macro :: IMG_2487.jpg picture by phredzilla - Photobucket

[natek313]

Originally Posted by fredzilla

Save your money for the Canon L series lens mentioned above. Just got one and paid dearly for it but it is in my opinion well worth the money.
Macro :: IMG_2528.jpg picture by phredzilla - Photobucket
Macro :: IMG_2487.jpg picture by phredzilla - Photobucket

Optically, it's not that much different from the 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens.

CRP626, I think if you're going to use the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens for much more than macro work, then it is probably a good investment. However, if you are just looking for a dedicated macro lens, I would save the money and go with the 100mm f/2.8 USM.

Just my opinion.