Minolta 100 mm f/2.8 macro vs Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 macro

[Skoropada]

I have the oportunity to buy a Minolta 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens.
It's a mid-80's lens in excellent condition.

But my concern is that for roughly the same price I could get a new Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 macro.

Both lenses have comparable reviews, but I know that sometimes you can end with a lesser quality Sigma because of the QA.

¿What's your oppinion on the matter?
¿Which lens would you recommend?

PS: I live in South America, so it's not that easy to get this kind of lenses and neither is easy to try both before buying...

[ishootRAW]

I can not vouch for the sigma. In their heyday, minolta made some wonderful glass, but the sigma is a newer design. If your willing to deel with possibly sending the lens back multiple times, get the sigma. If not, play it safe and get the minolta.

[Dodge]

I have the Minolta it's a great lens and built like a tank. If I lost or broke mine I know I would be searching for another one straight away.I've no experience of the Sigma though, but I would have to ask, why is the 25 year old Minolta the same price as a new Sigma? The answers to that question alone would make my mind up . Plus youre buying the Minolta at used price, if you ever sell it you'll get similar back whereas buying the Sigma new, you'll only get used price if you ever sell it.

Compare shots taken with both on Dyxum.com and maybe any Flickr groups for each lens, and hopefully the photographs, which at the end of the day is what really matters, should tell you the differences.

Also, in case you ever update your body, always worth checking that any Sigma lenses you buy have this mark Notice to Sony a33 and a55 owners using Sigma's Sony fit lenses

A lot too also depends on how good and clean the Minolta lens is of course. You can pick them up here in good nick for around the £200 mark. For significantly less than that I would be asking why is it so cheep. All things equal though I would personally buy the Minolta every time.