Macro lenses--Tokina 100mm, Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm

So I've got my hands on both the Tokina and the Sigma. Initial observations and thoughts are:

1. No major difference to speak of 100 vs. 105mm, not a deciding factor.

2. Sigma is substantially larger and heavier than the Tokina....bigger diameter, longer. The Tokina almost looks small next to the Sigma. Size preference here: Tokina

3. The Tokina lens pushes way out of the barrel to focus close, and thus adds about 2.5 inches to the length, thus shortening how far away the end of the lens will be from the subject. I had thought the Sigma did the same, but turns out the Sigma focus is all internal. Ultimately, if you are shooting with lens hood on and focusing close, the Sigma is about 1.75 inches longer than the Tokina, so it ends up physically closer to the subject than the Tokina. Without the lens hoods on, probably for inside macro shooting, the Sigma has a bit of advantage as it would be shorter at close focus.

4. The AF in the Sigma is definitely noisier and a bit creaky, if that's the word, and not as quick as the Tokina, which seems positively snappy by comparison. That said, the AF speed isn't really bothersome on either one, and both seem quite accurate. These aspects of AF wouldn't be a decision maker most likely.

4a. Manual focus seems good on both lenses.

5. I've shot a few identical photos with the same camera settings for comparison. Virtually identical image quality, both sharp as a tack, both fairly identical color rendering, which surprised me. If anything, the Tokina may be ever so slightly brighter, but not by much. Bokeh very nice on both, very similar. But I'll test that more outside when the rain/snow stops...hopefully tomorrow, and then I'll know more.

6. I was very interested in the Sigma because of its two OS setting switches (no OS at all on the Tokina). The jury is still out on whether or not the presence of OS makes a big difference, mostly when shooting hand held outside. I still need to test this.

7. AF-Manual switch....Somehow I kind of like Tokina's clutch system a tiny bit more. However, with Sigma you can set to AF and do manual adjustment via the focus ring if needed. Need to test this more too to see how well it works compared to Tokina.

8. Focus limiter switch on Sigma has 3 settings, allowing more precise focus limiting. The Tokina only has two settings. Again, I'm still undecided how important this really is...I'm thinking two is probably just as good as three as I'd probably keep forgetting which switch is which limit range, and that could be a nuisance.

9. Lens hoods: I like the Tokina better....adequate, but not nearly as long as the Sigma, which has TWO hoods and is quite long when on the lens. There is an APS-C adapter hood that goes on first if you have a DX camera, followed by the full frame one. If you have a full frame camera, you would just use the one full frame part. When both hoods are on the lens, it looks almost as long as the 100-400 lens! I'm wondering why the lens hoods have to be so darn long.

10. The Tokina's lens glass is recessed way back into the lens barrel, so far back it's hard to see if anything is on the lens surface, if it needs cleaning, etc, whereas the Sigma's is right up front at the end of the lens barrel, more so than any of my other lenses. It's so close to the front edge that you have to put on the lens hood or lens cap very carefully! This makes me think about needing a protective filter.... Not sure which lens would be better in this respect. Jury is out on this one, but in perhaps the deeply recessed Tokina glass is better protected...??

The Sigma comes with a very nice lens case, for what that is worth. Not sure I care all that much, and it could be one reason why the Sigma is 220 bucks more than the Tokina, that case undoubtedly added to the price. Wish it had been optional...I probably would not have ordered it.

I'll know more when I can do more testing outside, trying to shoot little things and evaluate how the OS helps (or not) in that scenario. The OS is actually is the main feature I wondered about compared to the Tokina. Not sure I need it outside or not yet, and how it might improve hand held shots compared to Tokina with no OS.

Updates and photo comparisons later.

Your evaluation is really interesting, I rarely read of anyone doing comparative test drives.

I believe the Tokina does not have an af motor. That means it will not af on a Z camera if you ever plan to go that way.

Good point....and it will only work with a camera that has a focus meter inside. It will work with my D7500 but not my D5600 (which has no focus motor)....and I'm glad you mentioned that because I'd forgotten that fact!

Regarding focus limiting: i think the tokina has also three settings although they are somewhat hidden: the switch is unlimited focus range or limited range, where the range is either close focussing or far focussing, depending on where the focus was when engaging the limiter.

Still testing and unsure which lens I prefer. I like both. Sigh. I'm unsure of the value of the OS since I would mostly be shooting either in manual for planned macro, and outdoors I could probably do fine without OS anyway when shooting at higher shutter speeds. I would probably do mostly indoors macro, but did have the impression for outdoor shots that the OS is nice sometimes.

I was shooting this small frond of a fake plant and practicing AF to see how sharp the two were. Lo and behold, when I looked at the shot there was this tiny little bug of some sort on the frond...I couldn't even really see it was there when I took the shot.

So this seemed like a good opportunity for a comparison test: hand held, OS off on the Sigma, manual focus, same camera settings, on-camera flash used. SOOC images.

I see differences in detail that shows up in one, but not the other. Not sure what to think. Slightly different background bokeh. Both seem equally sharp.

First pic is the Tokina, second is Sigma.


Tokina 100mm


Sigma 105mm

Both are sharp IMO with Sigma perhaps a bit sharper. The sigma looks like it has more contrast to my eye which gives it a more 3 dimensional look vs. Tokina has a bit less contrast/more "flat" look. Sometimes putting them side-by-side can help to spot subtle differences. Tokina is on the left and Sigma on the right for the screenshots below. If u are planning to use for portraits also, you can do similar comparison shots for that too to see if one lens is better in one or both uses.

CMCM said:

Still testing and unsure which lens I prefer. I like both. Sigh. I'm unsure of the value of the OS since I would mostly be shooting either in manual for planned macro, and outdoors I could probably do fine without OS anyway when shooting at higher shutter speeds. I would probably do mostly indoors macro, but did have the impression for outdoor shots that the OS is nice sometimes.

I was shooting this small frond of a fake plant and practicing AF to see how sharp the two were. Lo and behold, when I looked at the shot there was this tiny little bug of some sort on the frond...I couldn't even really see it was there when I took the shot.

So this seemed like a good opportunity for a comparison test: hand held, OS off on the Sigma, manual focus, same camera settings, on-camera flash used. SOOC images.

I see differences in detail that shows up in one, but not the other. Not sure what to think. Slightly different background bokeh. Both seem equally sharp.

First pic is the Tokina, second is Sigma.


Tokina 100mm


Sigma 105mm

Click to expand...

Very similar. The most noticeable difference to me is the greater closeness of the Tokina shot. Shooting handheld, distance to subject is very difficult, if not impossible, to control. It would be interesting to see a few different variations especially each at minimum focus. This would bring out the differences of the focal length and of the minimum focus distances. Here the bug looks further from the sensor in the Sigma shot which may very well not be the case in minimum focus distance shots.

Also, I thought you were going to compare os on and off with just the Sigma as this would give you pretty exact insight into the value of stabilization. Would you be able to get the framing you wanted with the unstabilized version? Would the os on give you an advantage in this regard.

But, yes, in terms of sharpness, no decision making difference here to my eye.

I think flash helps to freeze the subject at low shutter speeds so lessens the importance of os.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

Brev00 said:

CMCM said:

Still testing and unsure which lens I prefer. I like both. Sigh. I'm unsure of the value of the OS since I would mostly be shooting either in manual for planned macro, and outdoors I could probably do fine without OS anyway when shooting at higher shutter speeds. I would probably do mostly indoors macro, but did have the impression for outdoor shots that the OS is nice sometimes.

I was shooting this small frond of a fake plant and practicing AF to see how sharp the two were. Lo and behold, when I looked at the shot there was this tiny little bug of some sort on the frond...I couldn't even really see it was there when I took the shot.

So this seemed like a good opportunity for a comparison test: hand held, OS off on the Sigma, manual focus, same camera settings, on-camera flash used. SOOC images.

I see differences in detail that shows up in one, but not the other. Not sure what to think. Slightly different background bokeh. Both seem equally sharp.

First pic is the Tokina, second is Sigma.


Tokina 100mm


Sigma 105mm

Click to expand...

Very similar. The most noticeable difference to me is the greater closeness of the Tokina shot. Shooting handheld, distance to subject is very difficult, if not impossible, to control. It would be interesting to see a few different variations especially each at minimum focus. This would bring out the differences of the focal length and of the minimum focus distances. Here the bug looks further from the sensor in the Sigma shot which may very well not be the case in minimum focus distance shots.

Also, I thought you were going to compare os on and off with just the Sigma as this would give you pretty exact insight into the value of stabilization. Would you be able to get the framing you wanted with the unstabilized version? Would the os on give you an advantage in this regard.

But, yes, in terms of sharpness, no decision making difference here to my eye.

I think flash helps to freeze the subject at low shutter speeds so lessens the importance of os.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/

Click to expand...

That bug is an ancient mummified corpse. Wonder how long it’s been hanging there?

RMcL said:

Brev00 said:

CMCM said:

Still testing and unsure which lens I prefer. I like both. Sigh. I'm unsure of the value of the OS since I would mostly be shooting either in manual for planned macro, and outdoors I could probably do fine without OS anyway when shooting at higher shutter speeds. I would probably do mostly indoors macro, but did have the impression for outdoor shots that the OS is nice sometimes.

I was shooting this small frond of a fake plant and practicing AF to see how sharp the two were. Lo and behold, when I looked at the shot there was this tiny little bug of some sort on the frond...I couldn't even really see it was there when I took the shot.

So this seemed like a good opportunity for a comparison test: hand held, OS off on the Sigma, manual focus, same camera settings, on-camera flash used. SOOC images.

I see differences in detail that shows up in one, but not the other. Not sure what to think. Slightly different background bokeh. Both seem equally sharp.

First pic is the Tokina, second is Sigma.


Tokina 100mm


Sigma 105mm

Click to expand...

Very similar. The most noticeable difference to me is the greater closeness of the Tokina shot. Shooting handheld, distance to subject is very difficult, if not impossible, to control. It would be interesting to see a few different variations especially each at minimum focus. This would bring out the differences of the focal length and of the minimum focus distances. Here the bug looks further from the sensor in the Sigma shot which may very well not be the case in minimum focus distance shots.

Also, I thought you were going to compare os on and off with just the Sigma as this would give you pretty exact insight into the value of stabilization. Would you be able to get the framing you wanted with the unstabilized version? Would the os on give you an advantage in this regard.

But, yes, in terms of sharpness, no decision making difference here to my eye.

I think flash helps to freeze the subject at low shutter speeds so lessens the importance of os.

Click to expand...

That bug is an ancient mummified corpse. Wonder how long it’s been hanging there?

Click to expand...

This little fake plant has been there for a number of years....so no telling!

--
Birds/Wildlife albums: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cmcm2018/albums

Brev00 said:

CMCM said:

Still testing and unsure which lens I prefer. I like both. Sigh. I'm unsure of the value of the OS since I would mostly be shooting either in manual for planned macro, and outdoors I could probably do fine without OS anyway when shooting at higher shutter speeds. I would probably do mostly indoors macro, but did have the impression for outdoor shots that the OS is nice sometimes.

I was shooting this small frond of a fake plant and practicing AF to see how sharp the two were. Lo and behold, when I looked at the shot there was this tiny little bug of some sort on the frond...I couldn't even really see it was there when I took the shot.

So this seemed like a good opportunity for a comparison test: hand held, OS off on the Sigma, manual focus, same camera settings, on-camera flash used. SOOC images.

I see differences in detail that shows up in one, but not the other. Not sure what to think. Slightly different background bokeh. Both seem equally sharp.

First pic is the Tokina, second is Sigma.


Tokina 100mm


Sigma 105mm

Click to expand...

Very similar. The most noticeable difference to me is the greater closeness of the Tokina shot. Shooting handheld, distance to subject is very difficult, if not impossible, to control. It would be interesting to see a few different variations especially each at minimum focus. This would bring out the differences of the focal length and of the minimum focus distances. Here the bug looks further from the sensor in the Sigma shot which may very well not be the case in minimum focus distance shots.

Also, I thought you were going to compare os on and off with just the Sigma as this would give you pretty exact insight into the value of stabilization. Would you be able to get the framing you wanted with the unstabilized version? Would the os on give you an advantage in this regard.

But, yes, in terms of sharpness, no decision making difference here to my eye.

I think flash helps to freeze the subject at low shutter speeds so lessens the importance of os.

Click to expand...

How exactly would you recommend setting up a test? This is using a 100mm vs. a 105mm distance, but since I was hand holding I guess it would be hard to do them exactly the same. I wanted to hand hold on a test because I WILL be shooting a few opportunistic things that way and I wanted to know which would perform better. I suppose I should try some things NOT using flash, and perhaps using OS on with the Sigma and compare to the Tokina, which doesn't have OS and then see which performs better.

CMCM said:

How exactly would you recommend setting up a test? This is using a 100mm vs. a 105mm distance, but since I was hand holding I guess it would be hard to do them exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Use tripod or fixed surface.

CMCM said:

I wanted to hand hold on a test because I WILL be shooting a few opportunistic things that way and I wanted to know which would perform better.

Click to expand...

Too many factors involved.

CMCM said:

I suppose I should try some things NOT using flash,

Click to expand...

Yes.

CMCM said:

and perhaps using OS on with the Sigma and compare to the Tokina,

Click to expand...

No and yes.

CMCM said:

which doesn't have OS and then see which performs better.

Click to expand...

Ufff.

Just put a bright light behind the object and check what is going on.

I guess that you don't have a clue what are the basic optical characteristic to test.

CMCM said:

Brev00 said:

CMCM said:

Still testing and unsure which lens I prefer. I like both. Sigh. I'm unsure of the value of the OS since I would mostly be shooting either in manual for planned macro, and outdoors I could probably do fine without OS anyway when shooting at higher shutter speeds. I would probably do mostly indoors macro, but did have the impression for outdoor shots that the OS is nice sometimes.

I was shooting this small frond of a fake plant and practicing AF to see how sharp the two were. Lo and behold, when I looked at the shot there was this tiny little bug of some sort on the frond...I couldn't even really see it was there when I took the shot.

So this seemed like a good opportunity for a comparison test: hand held, OS off on the Sigma, manual focus, same camera settings, on-camera flash used. SOOC images.

I see differences in detail that shows up in one, but not the other. Not sure what to think. Slightly different background bokeh. Both seem equally sharp.

First pic is the Tokina, second is Sigma.


Tokina 100mm


Sigma 105mm

Click to expand...

Very similar. The most noticeable difference to me is the greater closeness of the Tokina shot. Shooting handheld, distance to subject is very difficult, if not impossible, to control. It would be interesting to see a few different variations especially each at minimum focus. This would bring out the differences of the focal length and of the minimum focus distances. Here the bug looks further from the sensor in the Sigma shot which may very well not be the case in minimum focus distance shots.

Also, I thought you were going to compare os on and off with just the Sigma as this would give you pretty exact insight into the value of stabilization. Would you be able to get the framing you wanted with the unstabilized version? Would the os on give you an advantage in this regard.

But, yes, in terms of sharpness, no decision making difference here to my eye.

I think flash helps to freeze the subject at low shutter speeds so lessens the importance of os.

Click to expand...

How exactly would you recommend setting up a test? This is using a 100mm vs. a 105mm distance, but since I was hand holding I guess it would be hard to do them exactly the same. I wanted to hand hold on a test because I WILL be shooting a few opportunistic things that way and I wanted to know which would perform better. I suppose I should try some things NOT using flash, and perhaps using OS on with the Sigma and compare to the Tokina, which doesn't have OS and then see which performs better.

Click to expand...

I think testing Sigma on and off would be very simple to do and would give you an accurate impression of the importance of os. Handhold with os getting the precise framing you want, then do the same without os. OS not only prevents shake it also stabilizes the viewfinder which can be a big aid in composing an image. Now, I do shoot with my Sigma 70 handheld at very close distances and times and it lacks os so, in a sense, one takes one what can get. One can shoot a small burst, pick the best, or use a flash to lend an assist. If you really want control of the precision of a shot and want to compare sharpness and other lens features, using a tripod is the way to go. Then, you know the upper limits of each lens.

Looking things up I see the Sigma has a 7 inch greater minimum focus distance. This is pretty significant. In Digital-pictures.com, The Sigma os beat the Tokina in terms of sharpness:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

If user reviews mean anything to you, the percentage of 5 star reviews of the Tokina beat the percentage of 5 star reviews of the Sigma by a good bit (both were very positive) on B & H.

Jura S said:

Jura S said:

How exactly would you recommend setting up a test? This is using a 100mm vs. a 105mm distance, but since I was hand holding I guess it would be hard to do them exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Use tripod or fixed surface.

Jura S said:

I wanted to hand hold on a test because I WILL be shooting a few opportunistic things that way and I wanted to know which would perform better.

Click to expand...

Too many factors involved.

Jura S said:

I suppose I should try some things NOT using flash,

Click to expand...

Yes.

Jura S said:

and perhaps using OS on with the Sigma and compare to the Tokina,

Click to expand...

No and yes.

Jura S said:

which doesn't have OS and then see which performs better.

Click to expand...

Ufff.

Just put a bright light behind the object and check what is going on.

I guess that you don't have a clue what are the basic optical characteristic to test.

Click to expand...

Of course I don't have a clue....that's why I'm asking questions of those who presumably know a lot more than I do about how to evaluate this type of lens.

I'll add that this is not intended to be real serious stuff, I'm just doing macro for fun, as an enthusiast, and none of this needs to be rocket science and scientific, but I'd like to choose the best overall lens out of the 3 I originally mentioned. My main question is really about the need for OS/VR (or not), because two of the lenses have it and one does not. So for me, since image quality is probably fairly similar with all three, it's about whether or not to spend a bit extra over the Tokina's cost in order to get OS. Simple as that.

Brev00 said:

CMCM said:

Brev00 said:

CMCM said:

Still testing and unsure which lens I prefer. I like both. Sigh. I'm unsure of the value of the OS since I would mostly be shooting either in manual for planned macro, and outdoors I could probably do fine without OS anyway when shooting at higher shutter speeds. I would probably do mostly indoors macro, but did have the impression for outdoor shots that the OS is nice sometimes.

I was shooting this small frond of a fake plant and practicing AF to see how sharp the two were. Lo and behold, when I looked at the shot there was this tiny little bug of some sort on the frond...I couldn't even really see it was there when I took the shot.

So this seemed like a good opportunity for a comparison test: hand held, OS off on the Sigma, manual focus, same camera settings, on-camera flash used. SOOC images.

I see differences in detail that shows up in one, but not the other. Not sure what to think. Slightly different background bokeh. Both seem equally sharp.

First pic is the Tokina, second is Sigma.


Tokina 100mm


Sigma 105mm

Click to expand...

Very similar. The most noticeable difference to me is the greater closeness of the Tokina shot. Shooting handheld, distance to subject is very difficult, if not impossible, to control. It would be interesting to see a few different variations especially each at minimum focus. This would bring out the differences of the focal length and of the minimum focus distances. Here the bug looks further from the sensor in the Sigma shot which may very well not be the case in minimum focus distance shots.

Also, I thought you were going to compare os on and off with just the Sigma as this would give you pretty exact insight into the value of stabilization. Would you be able to get the framing you wanted with the unstabilized version? Would the os on give you an advantage in this regard.

But, yes, in terms of sharpness, no decision making difference here to my eye.

I think flash helps to freeze the subject at low shutter speeds so lessens the importance of os.

Click to expand...

How exactly would you recommend setting up a test? This is using a 100mm vs. a 105mm distance, but since I was hand holding I guess it would be hard to do them exactly the same. I wanted to hand hold on a test because I WILL be shooting a few opportunistic things that way and I wanted to know which would perform better. I suppose I should try some things NOT using flash, and perhaps using OS on with the Sigma and compare to the Tokina, which doesn't have OS and then see which performs better.

Click to expand...

I think testing Sigma on and off would be very simple to do and would give you an accurate impression of the importance of os. Handhold with os getting the precise framing you want, then do the same without os. OS not only prevents shake it also stabilizes the viewfinder which can be a big aid in composing an image. Now, I do shoot with my Sigma 70 handheld at very close distances and times and it lacks os so, in a sense, one takes one what can get. One can shoot a small burst, pick the best, or use a flash to lend an assist. If you really want control of the precision of a shot and want to compare sharpness and other lens features, using a tripod is the way to go. Then, you know the upper limits of each lens.

Looking things up I see the Sigma has a 7 inch greater minimum focus distance. This is pretty significant. In Digital-pictures.com, The Sigma os beat the Tokina in terms of sharpness:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

If user reviews mean anything to you, the percentage of 5 star reviews of the Tokina beat the percentage of 5 star reviews of the Sigma by a good bit (both were very positive) on B & H.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

Click to expand...

Thank you very much....your information here is extremely helpful!

CMCM said:

Brev00 said:

CMCM said:

Brev00 said:

CMCM said:

Still testing and unsure which lens I prefer. I like both. Sigh. I'm unsure of the value of the OS since I would mostly be shooting either in manual for planned macro, and outdoors I could probably do fine without OS anyway when shooting at higher shutter speeds. I would probably do mostly indoors macro, but did have the impression for outdoor shots that the OS is nice sometimes.

I was shooting this small frond of a fake plant and practicing AF to see how sharp the two were. Lo and behold, when I looked at the shot there was this tiny little bug of some sort on the frond...I couldn't even really see it was there when I took the shot.

So this seemed like a good opportunity for a comparison test: hand held, OS off on the Sigma, manual focus, same camera settings, on-camera flash used. SOOC images.

I see differences in detail that shows up in one, but not the other. Not sure what to think. Slightly different background bokeh. Both seem equally sharp.

First pic is the Tokina, second is Sigma.


Tokina 100mm


Sigma 105mm

Click to expand...

Very similar. The most noticeable difference to me is the greater closeness of the Tokina shot. Shooting handheld, distance to subject is very difficult, if not impossible, to control. It would be interesting to see a few different variations especially each at minimum focus. This would bring out the differences of the focal length and of the minimum focus distances. Here the bug looks further from the sensor in the Sigma shot which may very well not be the case in minimum focus distance shots.

Also, I thought you were going to compare os on and off with just the Sigma as this would give you pretty exact insight into the value of stabilization. Would you be able to get the framing you wanted with the unstabilized version? Would the os on give you an advantage in this regard.

But, yes, in terms of sharpness, no decision making difference here to my eye.

I think flash helps to freeze the subject at low shutter speeds so lessens the importance of os.

Click to expand...

How exactly would you recommend setting up a test? This is using a 100mm vs. a 105mm distance, but since I was hand holding I guess it would be hard to do them exactly the same. I wanted to hand hold on a test because I WILL be shooting a few opportunistic things that way and I wanted to know which would perform better. I suppose I should try some things NOT using flash, and perhaps using OS on with the Sigma and compare to the Tokina, which doesn't have OS and then see which performs better.

Click to expand...

I think testing Sigma on and off would be very simple to do and would give you an accurate impression of the importance of os. Handhold with os getting the precise framing you want, then do the same without os. OS not only prevents shake it also stabilizes the viewfinder which can be a big aid in composing an image. Now, I do shoot with my Sigma 70 handheld at very close distances and times and it lacks os so, in a sense, one takes one what can get. One can shoot a small burst, pick the best, or use a flash to lend an assist. If you really want control of the precision of a shot and want to compare sharpness and other lens features, using a tripod is the way to go. Then, you know the upper limits of each lens.

Looking things up I see the Sigma has a 7 inch greater minimum focus distance. This is pretty significant. In Digital-pictures.com, The Sigma os beat the Tokina in terms of sharpness:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

If user reviews mean anything to you, the percentage of 5 star reviews of the Tokina beat the percentage of 5 star reviews of the Sigma by a good bit (both were very positive) on B & H.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

Click to expand...

Thank you very much....your information here is extremely helpful!

Click to expand...

Oops, much less mfd than I said above. Only half an inch! Sorry. Still something.



--

CMCM said:

Jura S said:

CMCM said:

How exactly would you recommend setting up a test? This is using a 100mm vs. a 105mm distance, but since I was hand holding I guess it would be hard to do them exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Use tripod or fixed surface.

CMCM said:

I wanted to hand hold on a test because I WILL be shooting a few opportunistic things that way and I wanted to know which would perform better.

Click to expand...

Too many factors involved.

CMCM said:

I suppose I should try some things NOT using flash,

Click to expand...

Yes.

CMCM said:

and perhaps using OS on with the Sigma and compare to the Tokina,

Click to expand...

No and yes.

CMCM said:

which doesn't have OS and then see which performs better.

Click to expand...

Ufff.

Just put a bright light behind the object and check what is going on.

I guess that you don't have a clue what are the basic optical characteristic to test.

Click to expand...

Of course I don't have a clue....that's why I'm asking questions of those who presumably know a lot more than I do about how to evaluate this type of lens.

I'll add that this is not intended to be real serious stuff, I'm just doing macro for fun, as an enthusiast, and none of this needs to be rocket science and scientific, but I'd like to choose the best overall lens out of the 3 I originally mentioned. My main question is really about the need for OS/VR (or not), because two of the lenses have it and one does not. So for me, since image quality is probably fairly similar with all three, it's about whether or not to spend a bit extra over the Tokina's cost in order to get OS. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

At least with my Tamron SP 90mm I’m beginning to suspect that VC may actually be introducing blur at certain shutter speed ranges. Not confirmed, but I was out yesterday and kept VC off and my keeper rate was higher than during my previous outing. Read somewhere else recently that one other Tamron zoom had VC induced blur at certain shutter speed ranges, if VC didn’t have enough time to settle. Anyway I’m thinking more and more that VC is most likely a non-essential feature for a macro lens.

RMcL said:

At least with my Tamron SP 90mm I’m beginning to suspect that VC may actually be introducing blur at certain shutter speed ranges. Not confirmed, but I was out yesterday and kept VC off and my keeper rate was higher than during my previous outing. Read somewhere else recently that one other Tamron zoom had VC induced blur at certain shutter speed ranges, if VC didn’t have enough time to settle. Anyway I’m thinking more and more that VC is most likely a non-essential feature for a macro lens.

Click to expand...

This is VERY interesting to read. I had been thinking about how you should turn off VR anyway when shooting at faster lens speeds (I'm assuming since these are 90-105mm lenses, if you are shooting at 1/250 or more, you should turn off VR.....if I'm understanding this idea correctly). Perhaps was because perhaps at faster shutter speeds the need for VR isn't there, VR more for shower SS.

In any case, I greatly appreciate your suggestion that perhaps the VC isn't as important as I was thinking it might be! If I were shooting under conditions where I needed a slow SS, I'd be using a tripod anyway.

How do you like your Tamron?

CMCM said:

CMCM said:

At least with my Tamron SP 90mm I’m beginning to suspect that VC may actually be introducing blur at certain shutter speed ranges. Not confirmed, but I was out yesterday and kept VC off and my keeper rate was higher than during my previous outing. Read somewhere else recently that one other Tamron zoom had VC induced blur at certain shutter speed ranges, if VC didn’t have enough time to settle. Anyway I’m thinking more and more that VC is most likely a non-essential feature for a macro lens.

Click to expand...

This is VERY interesting to read. I had been thinking about how you should turn off VR anyway when shooting at faster lens speeds (I'm assuming since these are 90-105mm lenses, if you are shooting at 1/250 or more, you should turn off VR.....if I'm understanding this idea correctly). Perhaps was because perhaps at faster shutter speeds the need for VR isn't there, VR more for shower SS.

In any case, I greatly appreciate your suggestion that perhaps the VC isn't as important as I was thinking it might be! If I were shooting under conditions where I needed a slow SS, I'd be using a tripod anyway.

How do you like your Tamron?

Click to expand...

Very happy with it now. IQ is outstanding. Had a bit of a process with having to send first sample back, but replacement seems to be working fine overall (probably read about my schenanigens this weekend in the other thread in this forum ). Not sure I’m right about the VC thing, just mentioned this cause Sushi Eater was commenting on VC induced blur with another Tamron lens (a long zoom lens) in another thread and that behavior “might” fit with my observations with this lens. I am seeing blur with VC on from low shutter speeds say 1/15th up to maybe 1/320th. Blur is stronger the lower the shutter speed. I have not done side by side comparisons with VC on and off, so time will tell. As with you I’m new to the world of macro photography.

Also have to consider that my experience is based on the D850. Since this camera was introduced, expert after expert has proclaimed that the high resolution sensor will reveal every last weakness in a lens and not the least every last weakness in shooting technique. That said my handheld results are 9/10 satisfactory in terms of sharpness with my Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200mm zooms with VR on. Hard to think that my newly acquired Tamron 90mm Macro should be more challenging from shooting technique standpoint than a 70-200 lens, so something is going on that leads to appearance of motion blur at lower shutter speeds. Fact that I see this at longer focal ranges, say from 3m to infinity is what really interests me, not so much macro focal distances where need for much better setup stability is perfectly understandable. I need some time and more experimenting to isolate more concretely when the blur occurs and under what circumstances, e.g., side by side comparisons with and without VC being active. But, I’m not going to make a PhD out of it as I want to enjoy the lens as well!