Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro

[jeff_hallett1]

Sigma has a new macro out that according to "reports" can perform equally as well as the Tamron 90mm 2.8 which can go head to head with Canon,s 1002.8 as I have seen in slide comparisons.

The Sigma is a little cheaper than the others and supposedly has better body workmanship than the Tamron. Canon is always good but $500+ is a chunk of change for me right now. Thank YOU!!

[andrzej_poniatowski]

I have been using a Sigma 105/2.8 EX Macro for several months now

(together with a Pentax MZ-3 body).

I think the lens is one of the better (optically) lenses I have ever

used ( perhaps slightly soft on 2.8 and 4; super sharp and contrasty

when stopped down; superb macro performance, nice "feel" on manual

focusing) - seems to be well-made also! Very much recommended - for

the price it is a steal!

[bliorg]

Agree with the above. I've put probably thirty rolls of film through

this lens in the past three months, and (IMO) it's an extraordinary

value. The Canon lens may be exceptional, also; I haven't used it,

though most of what I've heard implies that macro lenses are pretty

good in general. There's been some debate as to the bokeh of this

lens; others hate it, I've never noticed anything objectionable, and I

do a lot of shooting <a

href="http://users.ntr.net/~msperry/Fl9012_1.jpg">wide open</a>.

Build quality has been great. Recommended.

[tuukka_jylhd]

I tried both EX- Sigma and Tamron on my EOS, and there was a minor

difference in color rendition, but the only big difference was in my

mind just bokeh. I really enjoy the background blur of this Tamron

lens and picked it over Sigma. Very sharp, very nice. Build-quality

was better in Sigma I think, though I had these objektives only for

one day. Anyway there has been no problems with Tamron. Tuukka J.