Sigma or Tamron Macro Lens

[keith_mckenzie]

Hi people.

I am currently looking to buy a macr lens, i am looking at a tamron 90mm or the

sigma 105mm lenses. I cannot make upi my mind, i was wonering if anybody can

give me their feelings on either lens

Thanks very much

[dan_brown4]

I think you will be happy with either. These days, I'm kinda of partial to Sigma for third-

party lenses. But that's just me.

[cameron_price]

Definitely the Tamron. B&H has it with a $90 rebate here:

 

http://www.bhablephotovideo.com/c/product/330643-USA/Tamron_AF272N700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html

 

Of course, it is backordered; however, if they get in any by the end of the month, you may still be able to take advantage of the rebate.

[steve_levine]

In my experience : I'd research "build quality" of these aftermarket lenses vs Nikkors if I were you. In ten years a Nikkor lens will be still working like new. The cheaper 3rd party glass will be collecting dust.

[geoff_portas]

I have the Tamron 90 and it is an excellent lens for both image quality and build quality.

However if I was buying now I'd go for the Nikon 105 VR. In my experience movement is the greatest cause of unsharp images.

[Peter_in_PA]

Check this review (look at the end for the part about the Tamron.

 

http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

 

The Tamron at least, is a good bet.

[smw-jmw]

I have heard good reports on both these lenses, but when making the choice myself I ended up buying the Tokina 100mm F2.8 AT-X Pro D, it's a great lens and built like a tank...maybe another one worth considering....?

[eric friedemann]

My store has sold Tamron for over 25 years. We've never had a lens come back with a quality control issue.

 

 

We've occasionally sold Sigma lenses- new and used- and have seen three problems:

 

 

1. Some lenses exhibit quality control issues- i.e. sample variance- of the sort Mike Reichman describes from the middle to bottom this article:

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

 

 

2. Whenever we take in a Sigma lens on trade, we test it to make sure it will autofocus with the latest body in its mount. Sometimes Sigma lenses with older chips won't autofocus on newer bodies.

 

 

3. Whenever I've called Sigma on behalf of the store, the company's U.S. customer service has been attrocious.

[lex_jenkins]

While Steve's generalizations are reasonable, there are notable exceptions.

 

A handful of Nikkors are noted for problems, such as developing oily diaphragm blades. And some of the latest cheaply made Nikkors are no more durable than some third party lenses, especially those plastic mount abominations. (Sorry, folks, I'll admit to my irrational bias.)

 

Some third party lenses seem every bit as well made as comparable Nikkors. The Tokina 12-24/4 compares very well with the 12-24/4 DX Nikkor in build quality and almost as well in optical quality. It's arguably a better value, assuming you don't need an AF-S lens. Between the two, I'd take the Tokina.

 

Sigma offers a more interesting selection of fast, good value HSM lenses for owners of entry level dSLRs than Nikon does for its own cameras.

 

The Sigma 150/2.8 is another interesting lens that Nikon hasn't quite matched in terms of focal length or value.

 

As for gathering dust, some of my third party pawn shop pound puppies costing less than $100 are still seeing regular use. Apparently they haven't been informed that they're past their expiration date.

[Rich B NYC]

I went through the macro lens selection process last year and ended up with a Tokina 100mm f2.8 AT-X Pro.

 

While I haven't compared it head-to-head with the Sigma, Tamron or Nikkor, I have been more than satisfied with it.

 

One thing that I will say about it is that it's built a lot better than the Sigma and Tamron and even a bit better (IMO) than the Nikkor.

[douglas_greenberg]

In this case I'd unreservedly recommend the Tamron. It's a superb lens, and the truth is that Tamron has far fewer QC problems than Sigma.

 

I don't agree with the claim that a Tamron (or other third-party lens) is going to be gathering dust in ten years. I think that these companies outgrew that rep years ago. I have very old third party lenses (Tokina and Tamron) that still work fabulously after twenty years. The truth is that IF you are very hard on gear (which I am not) you would be better off with the tank-like professional lenses from Nikon, but you pay quite a premium and for most of us this is not necessary.

[ShunCheung]

Not that I disagree with Eric's points, but until very recently, Sigma is the only 3rd-party brand that has HSM (the equivalent of AF-S) in its lenses for Nikon. In a sense Tamron has fewer problems because it has been avoiding the latest technology and compatibility issues.

 

To take this further, the Zeiss ZF lenses don't even have AF at all nor any CPU electronics in them; they are all well made, mechanical lenses that apparently have very good quality control, and Zeiss charges high prices for those lenses manufactured by Cosina.

 

My point is that if you look into the details, Sigma is not necessarily "bad" just because they have more returns.

[eric friedemann]

Shun, particularly from a standpoint of Nikon-mount lenses, you make a valid point. Tamron has been maddeningly pokey in fielding lenses with internal motors- I suspect the only reason we're seeing Tamron Nikon-mount lenses with motors at all is the introduction of Nikon DSLR bodies without internal motors. And the motors Tamron has put in its newer DX lenses are really sloooowwww.

 

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't own a Sigma lens- if I didn't already owned a 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor, I would definitely buy a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Its just that you really want to test a Sigma lens when you get it to make sure everything's o.k. before the store's return period expires.

[john schroeder]

I have to agree with Mr. Friedemann about Sigma. My store has backed away from Sigma. We were having too compatibility problems with them. With only a one year warranty any compatibility issues with new gear occur after the warranty has expired. Sigma charges a fee to re-chip a lens. Over the same time period we have never had a compatibility problem with Tamron. Tamron lenses have a six year warranty. Any compatibility issues which might occur with Tamron would likely happen during the warranty period of the lens. Optically I think both companies make some fine lenses and some that are not so fine. You get what you pay for. The 90mm macro from Tamron is an excellent performer. Personally I would buy the new Nikon 60mm AFS Micro.

[paul stewart]

I'm another that would recommend the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. Excellent quality.

[lisa_b4]

Another positive vote for the Tamron 90mm. I got mine used/mint for $200 and I'm consistently amazed at the quality of the images from that lens. Excellent contrast, crisp focus, very, very nice bokeh. I'm not a big macro shooter, but I do use it and when I do I'm very impressed with the IQ. For $200 it's a no-brainer to keep one in my bag.

 

As to Steve's comments above about 3rd party lenses "gathering dust in 10 years," in my experience I find that most people who regularly denigrate 3rd party lenses in photo forums have never actually used or owned any 3rd party lenses (and/or they tried one 20 years ago.....) and yet they constantly bad-mouth them in apparently some bizzare effort to help Nikon and/or prove their brand loyalty to Nikon. When pressed for details about their actual recent experiences with 3rd party lenses, there's almost always the famed "well, I heard it from a friend" or "I read somewhere on the internet" about quality control or image quality problems with 3rd party lenses--the fact of the matter is that these days the quality of the 3rd party lenses and their low prices mean that just about anyone can benefit from giving them serious consideration.

[bruce_margolis]

As a company, Sigma has been very impressive in adding to their lineup in the past year or so. Many more AF-S/VR equivalent additions and some neat niche lenses. Far ahead of the other third party vendors and in some cases, ahead of Nikon.

 

But the OP wasn't asking about the companies. He just wants opinions on the Tamron 90 vs Sigma 105.

 

Keith, I faced a similar decision but I was comparing the Tamron 90 to the Nikon 105. Obviously the Nikon has a far superior build but

I also read many reviews as well as opinions here. Frankly, the Sigma never even reached the radar. Not knocking the lens, just saying that the Tamron reviews are quite outstanding. My experience with the lens backs up the reviews.

 

In the end, the Tamron won for a couple reasons. First, I really liked the focal length. The 105 was just a bit too long for what i wanted. Second, it works as a wonderful portrait length for me. YMMV, of course.

 

I would say try out both of them if you can.

[silvio_b]

I have Nikkor 55/3.5, Nikkor 60/2.8 ED AF-S, Tokina ATX 100/2.8 pro and Sigma 150/2.8 EX HSM with Sigma 1.4 APO TC.

Here are my opinions for macro work (on full frame film and D300 DX format):

-Sigma is the best in terms of contrast, resolution, bokeh, speed, working distance (not so excellent with 1.4 APO TC) and some sample variations (one came with internal element scratched and focus limiter working sometimes only)

-Nikkor 60/2.8 ED AF-S a little better contrast, but quite visible CA and a little bit soft at the edges, very fast but short working distance.

-Tokina ATX 100/2.8 pro is a very good lens with uniform resolution and contrast for the whole frame except high CA, good but not excellent focus speed.

 

Please note that f:/2.8 is at infinity only, once you focus closer you'll get 3.x to 5.6 for any of them.

 

Hope this will help, Silvio<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

I have updated the subject to reflect the question on macro lenses. The original subject was just "Sigma or Tamron," hence leading to the somewhat off-topic discussion.

 

If you are going to use the lens for macro only, AF capability is less of an issue, anyway.

[silvio_b]

Nikon 60mm ED AF-S<div></div>

[silvio_b]

Nikon 55mm F:/3.5 Ai<div></div>

[walterh]

Silvio do you have any more images taken with the new 60mm Nikkor? This lens seems to have an unusual and -at least to me- very pleasant "signature" - at least unusual for Nikon.

 

Back to the topic: I own the 90mm Tamron and all I can say is that I sold my 105mm AFD f2.8 Micro Nikkor a few weeks after I got the Tamron - you go and figure. Yes the built quality of the Nikkor looks and feels better. At the price of the Tamron you can wear out several lenses for the price of a Nikkor 105 macro VR. Now the current Nikkor 105 may be optically better and reach or surpass the level of the Tamron.

 

Another comment on the Zeiss Macro lenses. The longer lens, the Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF appears to be a phenomenal lens in terms of resolution and bokeh. In a technical instrumentation setup the high mechanical precision and optical quality will be worth while. I wonder if it will be useful in field applications to justify the expenses. In field use one usually works with small apertures and the superior resolution cannot be put to use.

[eric_arnold]

not to belabor the point, but sigma offers a 1 year worldwide warranty + 3 year USA warranty (as per B&H) on every non-grey market lens they sell, for a total of four years. that should be long enough to determine any QC problems.

 

for the OP, you can't lose with any mid-tele (90-105 mm)macro selection, every review i've seen says all are good. perhaps a slight edge to the tamron in IQ and overall sharpness, but some folks prefer the sigma's less-fugly aesthetics. if you want sigma's best macro, get the 150mm.

[john schroeder]

Eric you are absolutely right. Sigma USA is offering a 4 year warranty now.