Macros compared - Canon 100/2.8, Tamron SP 90/2.8, Sigma 180/3.5

[chris_ferebee]

<p>I did a <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=007Izd">comparison</a>

of the <b>Tamron SP AF Macro 90/2.8 1:1</b> and the

<b>Sigma APO Macro 180/3.5 EX HSM</b> recently.</p>

<p>My conclusion was: whatever other relative merits they may have,

the Tamron is very sharp, and the Sigma disappointingly soft.</p>

<p>Now I had the opportunity to shoot a comparison with the

<b>Canon Macro 100/2.8</b> (pre-USM). See below for 100% pixel crops

from all three, shot with a Canon 300D.</p>

<p>The Canon seems to be about on par with the Tamron as far as

sharpness is concerned, with the Sigma a distant third. Note

that since I shot and processed the Canon image weeks after the

other two, it's probably not valid to compare color rendition

or contrast, I may have used different settings at some point.</p>

<p>Both the Tamron and the Canon feel very solidly constructed,

though not "L" grade. The Canon is metal, the Tamron plastic, so

the Tamron is lighter, but it doesn't feel cheap or flimsy the

way the EF-S 18-55 does. The build of the Sigma is

a cut above the other two, but in my mind that doesn't makes up

for the soft images. BTW, all three lenses were used, not new

(of course), but the Sigma was in mint condition. It may have been

a dud copy, but it wasn't soft due to abuse.</p>

<p> </p>

<table border="0" cellpadding="4">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><img

src="http://images.ferebee.net/permanent/canon-100-macro.jpg"></td>

<td> </td>

<td><img

src="http://images.ferebee.net/permanent/tamron-90-macro.jpg"></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b><i>Canon 100 Macro</i></b></td>

<td> </td>

<td><b><i>Tamron 90 Macro</i></b></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><img

src="http://images.ferebee.net/permanent/sigma-180-macro.jpg"></td>

<td> </td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><b><i>Sigma 180 Macro</i></b></td>

<td> </td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

[bob_bell]

I'm not sure that your test is valid completely because of the refresh rates of your TFT along with the fact that you are photographing essentially light bulbs.

 

Try your test using something more static like the stock quotes from your local newspaper.

[miles stoddard]

Per your comments in the original test results (via link you provided): (1) Is it true that the "Tamron costs about half as much as the Sigma"? Though shops differ greatly, especially mail order outfits, my shop has the Sigma at $679 and the Tamron at $459 - and this is a long way off of double. (2) Even if it were double the cost, would that have any bearing on this lens comparison, or on one's macro photo needs? For instance, the Canon 180mm macro costs 5-6x as much as the Sigma 50mm macro, but ... so what ..., for the lack of a better reply. Granted, sounds like you dont need any more macro lenses, but you should have tested 180's against 180's, and 100's against 100's -- and perhaps said more about how you set up the test, especially for the 180mm. Also, it might prove interesting to test them also at something other than 1:1 (a good percentage of field-work macro is not all the way at 1:1). Anyways ... I found the test interesting. I dont know enough about what one should expect from this to say more, and it is hard for me to imagine what the difference in the pics you posted would translate into on say a 11x14 print of more common macro nature shots. A while back a friend tested the 180mm's from Sigma and Canon (sadly, right before he knew Tamron had one due out). His comments on build quality matched yours. He didnt find the Sigma soft. He claimed any reason for buying the Sigma over than Canon (or the other way around) would almost surely have to come down to something other than optical quality (cost, build quality, warranty, company loyalty, compatibility issues, etc.) as their slides and b&w enlargments seemed indistinguishable. Unless a field test showed the 180mm "soft", you might consider keeping both lenses; there are times when you really need a 180mm macro.

[chris_ferebee]

<p>Bob: The exposure times were on the order of 1/10 to 1/15, so I don't think the

refresh rate has much of an effect, especially considering that TFTs have a fairly high

persistence. I can't answer your point about photographing light bulbs, but the TFT

subpixels are basically evenly illuminated rectangles. The fine detail is probably an effect

of the antireflective coating on the display, but it seems to me that it's a good test of

resolution nonetheless.</p>

 

<p>Miles: My comments on prices were based on the situation in Germany, where the

Sigma seems to be relatively somewhat more expensive. Of course there are various

reasons for choosing a particular macro lens, aside from price, but I gather that sharpness

is usually high on the list. :-)</p>

 

<p>I've decided on the Tamron, have since sold the Sigma, and borrowed the Canon to

test, out of curiosity. I just thought I'd pass on my results, and I think the Tamron delivers

a great bang for the buck.</p>

 

<p>As for the test method, I set the lens up perpendicular to the monitor, then tilted it

slightly to the left. That way, if the center of the image is in focus, the left and right edges

should be slightly and equally soft, which I verified. While doing the test on the Canon, I

did a series of exposures with bracketed focus to make sure I wasn't missing the point of

optimal focus, and that seemed to validate the original method.</p>

 

<p>Of course, this is just testing center sharpness, but then I can't very well corner

sharpness WRT the full field of view on a 300D anyway, nor does it matter to me. There

didn't seem to be much noticeable decline in sharpness towards the edge of the 1.6x

cropped field of view with any of the lenses, when I set them up so the subject was aligned

with the focus plane.</p>

 

<p>Finally, let me say that I offer these results for their entertainment value and as an

additional data point. The definitive survey of macro lenses is probably the one by <a

href="http://orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html">Dr. Horst Kretschmar</a>

("Orchideen-Kartierung"). As it turns out, his findings agree with mine. (The MP-E65 is

tops in its specialty, with the Tamron SP 90 leading the pack of "regular" macro lenses and

the Sigma 180 weaker than the rest.)</p>

[vincent_j_m]

I agree with your conclusions. Both the tamron 90 and 180 are excellent performers, in fact as good or better than the canon offerings. The only reason I chose the canon was for the USM motor. The sigma 105 and 180 were both soft at f/2.8 to f/8 and showed less color saturation and contrast, so I passed them up. The tamron and canon are on a different level.

[whayne_padden]

Anybody here tried the new Tamron 180 f/3.5 DI Macro; It's been getting excellent press as good as the SP 90 they say.