*Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm*

I've read many reviews of these two lenses and I also read many threads related to these lenses here, but I still can't decide which one to get.

If the money was not the problem then I would definitely get a Nikon 105mm VR, but my budget is less than $500.

At B&H,the Tamron costs $90 more than the Sigma, less $40 rebate.

Both lenses seem to be sharp but I noticed that almost all Sigma owners report that its AF is super slow and unreliable. But they also say that they usually use MF for macro so they care less about its infamous AF.

Tamron owners equally report that its AF is not fast but not to a degree that will bother you during shooting. Tamron owners' main complain seem to be the extended tube.

They rave about the tamron's "Bokeh", but is the Sigma's Bokeh significantly inferior to that of the Tamron?

If you intend to use for both macro/portrait, which lens would you recommend?

What do you think the definitive advantage these two lenses have over the other that you can not ignore?

What do you think the most annoying flaw of these two lenses that will make you not to buy?

In a real world,does 15mm difference make a huge difference?

I appreciate your help.

Thank you.

Both are superb lenses. They are extremely sharp - actually razor sharp. The Tamron is known to have a little better bokeh while the Sigma gives you an inch of edge in working distance. Sigma also has the edge in build quality.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

You have asked some really good questions here, so since I have both of these lenses I will try to answer as honestly as I can.

Hide Takahashi said:

Both lenses seem to be sharp but I noticed that almost all Sigma
owners report that its AF is super slow and unreliable. But they
also say that they usually use MF for macro so they care less about
its infamous AF.

Click to expand...

Yes, compared to my kit lens and my primes, both the Sigma and Tamron focus slowly and in poor light, sometimes hunt. I would never try to use either one for sports or fast action. I can't tell any significant difference in focusing speed between the two. I always use them in manual for macro, and if I am using AF, I try first to focus on something in the frame that is high contrast. If the focus is close to what you want and you refocus, then it is usually quite fast.

Hide Takahashi said:

Tamron owners equally report that its AF is not fast but not to a
degree that will bother you during shooting. Tamron owners' main
complain seem to be the extended tube.

Click to expand...

I can use my onboard flash with the Sigma fully extended, but the Tamron gives me a lens shadow at 1:1. If I use my SB 800 this problem is alleviated.

Hide Takahashi said:

They rave about the tamron's "Bokeh", but is the Sigma's Bokeh
significantly inferior to that of the Tamron?

Click to expand...

Hmmm. This is a difficult question. The bokeh is different. I will try to find some pictures to show you. If I want to take super close ups with very shallow DOF I usually choose the Tamron. If I want insects I usually choose the Sigma. I spent 2 months in the US this summer and because I needed to travel light, I could only take two lenses. I chose the Sigma and my Tamron 28-75, The Sigma gave me a little more spread in focal length than the Tamron 90 would have. I took over 2000 pictures and 2/3 were flower and insect macros with the Sigma. The Tamron may have had creamier boke in this kind of picture, but I wouldn't have been able to tell unless I had the two side by side. (Taken with the Sigma wide open)

Hide Takahashi said:

If you intend to use for both macro/portrait, which lens would you
recommend?

Click to expand...

Either one. (I'm sorry I can't give you and answer). If I know I am going to want 90mm for a portrait, I usually grab my 85mm f/1.8 instead of the Tamron, but if I happen to have either lens on my camera at the time, I wouldn't hisitate to use either..

Hide Takahashi said:

In a real world,does 15mm difference make a huge difference?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say a HUGE difference, but it does make a difference.

I will post some pictures to show you. The first is with the Sigma and the second with the Tamron. I tried to put the sharpen line the same distance from the bottom of the frame in both pictures. In order to do so, I had to move the tripod closer to the pencils for the Tamron, but even then you can see that the perspective is different. There is more background in the Tamron shot. This will also let you compare boke.

Hide Takahashi said:

I appreciate your help.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

--
Joanna
http://keemra.smugmug.com

Pradipta Dutta said:

Both are superb lenses. They are extremely sharp - actually razor
sharp. The Tamron is known to have a little better bokeh while the
Sigma gives you an inch of edge in working distance. Sigma also has
the edge in build quality.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright
fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I guess you won't go wrong with either lens.

Hide

Hide Takahashi said:

Thanks for your reply. I guess you won't go wrong with either lens.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely right.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

keemra said:

Hide Takahashi said:

Both lenses seem to be sharp but I noticed that almost all Sigma
owners report that its AF is super slow and unreliable. But they
also say that they usually use MF for macro so they care less about
its infamous AF.

Click to expand...

Yes, compared to my kit lens and my primes, both the Sigma and
Tamron focus slowly and in poor light, sometimes hunt. I would
never try to use either one for sports or fast action. I can't tell
any significant difference in focusing speed between the two. I
always use them in manual for macro, and if I am using AF, I try
first to focus on something in the frame that is high contrast. If
the focus is close to what you want and you refocus, then it is
usually quite fast.

keemra said:

Tamron owners equally report that its AF is not fast but not to a
degree that will bother you during shooting. Tamron owners' main
complain seem to be the extended tube.

Click to expand...

I can use my onboard flash with the Sigma fully extended, but the
Tamron gives me a lens shadow at 1:1. If I use my SB 800 this
problem is alleviated.

keemra said:

They rave about the tamron's "Bokeh", but is the Sigma's Bokeh
significantly inferior to that of the Tamron?

Click to expand...

Hmmm. This is a difficult question. The bokeh is different. I
will try to find some pictures to show you. If I want to take
super close ups with very shallow DOF I usually choose the Tamron.
If I want insects I usually choose the Sigma. I spent 2 months in
the US this summer and because I needed to travel light, I could
only take two lenses. I chose the Sigma and my Tamron 28-75, The
Sigma gave me a little more spread in focal length than the Tamron
90 would have. I took over 2000 pictures and 2/3 were flower and
insect macros with the Sigma. The Tamron may have had creamier boke
in this kind of picture, but I wouldn't have been able to tell
unless I had the two side by side. (Taken with the Sigma wide open)

keemra said:

If you intend to use for both macro/portrait, which lens would you
recommend?

Click to expand...

Either one. (I'm sorry I can't give you and answer). If I know I
am going to want 90mm for a portrait, I usually grab my 85mm f/1.8
instead of the Tamron, but if I happen to have either lens on my
camera at the time, I wouldn't hisitate to use either..

keemra said:

In a real world,does 15mm difference make a huge difference?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say a HUGE difference, but it does make a difference.
I will post some pictures to show you. The first is with the Sigma
and the second with the Tamron. I tried to put the sharpen line the
same distance from the bottom of the frame in both pictures. In
order to do so, I had to move the tripod closer to the pencils for
the Tamron, but even then you can see that the perspective is
different. There is more background in the Tamron shot. This will
also let you compare boke.

keemra said:

I appreciate your help.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

--
Joanna
http://keemra.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Thank you for taking your time to answer my questions with the sample images! I have 18-55, 50/f1.8 and 70-210/f4-5.6 and I was going to order 70-300 VR but on the second thought I wouldn't be using that lens much as the 70-210 sitting in my bag most of the time. I was also considering to get a 85mm/f1.8. Price wise, it's about the same as the Sigma 105.

I think I will get the Sigma. Thanks for your help.

Hide

the nice bokeh of Tamron make it nice lens for portrait shot, which is missing from your line up.

Hide Takahashi said:

Thank you for taking your time to answer my questions with the
sample images! I have 18-55, 50/f1.8 and 70-210/f4-5.6 and I was
going to order 70-300 VR but on the second thought I wouldn't be
using that lens much as the 70-210 sitting in my bag most of the
time. I was also considering to get a 85mm/f1.8. Price wise, it's
about the same as the Sigma 105.

I think I will get the Sigma. Thanks for your help.

Hide

Click to expand...

....and kept the Tamron. My reasons aren't very scientific, I just found it easier to get good results. They're both very good lenses.

I have the Sigma. Sharpness wise, all these macros are about the same - razor sharp, that is. The Tamron is supposed to have better bokeh, so that might make it the nicer portrait lens. Otherwise, there's not much in between these two.

One annoying thing about the Sigma, though: to switch from AF to MF is a 2-step process - move the focus clutch on the lens, AND flip the switch on the camera body! That's so lame. The Tamron has a better mechanism, as does the Tokina 100mm macro (another good choice, BTW) - here, you can just move the focus clutch to switch between AF/MF.

I think for less than $50 difference I'd get the Tamron. I just happened to get a great deal on my Sigma

Cheers

Mike

I'm also looking to buy a macro lens. I was considering the Nikkor 105mm, but, reading this thread, I am wondering if it is worth the extra money above the Tamron/Tokina/Sigma? Is the VR function much use as I will be probably be focussing manually most of the time?

I picture myself doing mainly handheld flower close-ups, mainly outdoors. ...looking for that "arty" look with a good bokeh!? Also handy if it doubles as a portrait lens in outdoor natural/low light (live in UK).

Should I also invest in a tripod and a flash? Any suggestions from experienced macro users?

I have read a bit about macro and played with some of these lenses, but any suggestions for a particularly good book or website to learn more?

D80, 18-200VR, 50 f/1.4

simmonski said:

I'm also looking to buy a macro lens. I was considering the Nikkor
105mm, but, reading this thread, I am wondering if it is worth the
extra money above the Tamron/Tokina/Sigma? Is the VR function much
use as I will be probably be focussing manually most of the time?
I picture myself doing mainly handheld flower close-ups, mainly
outdoors. ...looking for that "arty" look with a good bokeh!? Also
handy if it doubles as a portrait lens in outdoor natural/low light
(live in UK).
Should I also invest in a tripod and a flash? Any suggestions from
experienced macro users?
I have read a bit about macro and played with some of these lenses,
but any suggestions for a particularly good book or website to
learn more?

Click to expand...

I don't consider myself an experienced macro user, but in my opinion (and from what I've read) there's very little difference in the optical quality of the Nikkor 105 (both old & new), Sigma 105, Tamron 90, and Tokina 100.

So if you're only looking for the best optics, I'd say just go with the one you can get for the cheapest price, or the one that feels most comfortable to you...

The new Nikon 105 VR does offer VR and AF-S, however, most macro photographers use MF, and the benefit of VR is diminished at macro distances. Both are very useful for portraits, however.

You need to decide for yourself if that justifies the much higher cost, and the weight penalty!

Cheers

Mike

Good build quality. Or, buy a 105 Nikkor used. I have an ex-Columbus, OH CSI crime lab unit I got from Midwest Photo Exchange for $300. Works great.

Kev

I am inclined to buy a used macro lens because I don't use it too much. A few months ago KEH had several Tamron 90mm macros. Now they have just 1, at $364, and it is LN-. They also have a Sigma 105 for $286, EX+ condition. I think they really turn these lenses.

They also have several Nikkor 105mm 2.8 macro lenses at $429 to $529. A very well regarded lens too.

How would you guys compare the focusing speed of the Tamron and Sigma to the Nikon?
--
JohnE, the AZGuy
Equipment list in profile

You wouldn't go wrong with either one of these fine lenses.

I have the Sigma 105 and have no complaints sans one. The change to manual focus is done both on the lens and on the camera. Another minor complaint is that the front element of the lens moves in and out a good distance, which when going to 1:1 on a tripod, may force you to recompose the shot (move backward)

Julio

http://www.pbase.com/loansharkx

Loansharkx said:

You wouldn't go wrong with either one of these fine lenses.

I have the Sigma 105 and have no complaints sans one. The change
to manual focus is done both on the lens and on the camera.
Another minor complaint is that the front element of the lens moves
in and out a good distance, which when going to 1:1 on a tripod,
may force you to recompose the shot (move backward)

Julio

http://www.pbase.com/loansharkx

Click to expand...

Hi Julio,

You have a wonderful butterfly gallery and I wonder where you took all those beautiful butterfly shots at. Did you go to a speccial butterfly garden?

My Sigma 105mm is coming tomorrow and I'm looking forward to try it.

Hide

I have no experience with the aftermarket micros, but my Nikkor unit focuses reasonably well. I mention Tokina because I have their 28-80 and it's a great lens.

Kev