Macro lens buying advice Nikon 105 vs Sigma 105 vs Tamron 90

[Antonius91]

i could use your advice.

Im not sure which one to get

I have the opporunity to buy a used Nikon 105 vr for 400
For the same price I can get a new Sigma 105 (HSM)

The Tamron 90 is a bit tricker as I can only find it new and more expensive (600 ish). I think I like this best (from image samples) but the price is too high for me new, so I would have to wait for a used deal.

The Nikon is only in consideration because I can get it for 400. I was instantly sold, but after looking at reviews and comparisons, it seems the sigma and tamron offer far superior image quality.

Im using a Nikon D7100.

What macro lens would offer the sharpest image and best contrast/ bokeh
And would you say I should consider buying the non vr/ older lens (saves about 100 to 150)

Youtube video I used for comparison

Thanks

 

[SG-Photography]

I've never had good experience with a 3rd party lens except for wide angle. Having said that I have used and owned the 105 f/2.8 macro but I didn't use it a whole lot. I'm a portrait photographer and I did use it occasionally. It's slow to focus but that's the nature of a macro lens.

My understanding of macro photography is that most often you're focusing manually anyway. So if the Tamron has better specs I'd go with it.

I don't think you could go wrong either way. You're limiting factor is probably your camera at this stage.

The other route you might consider, is an extension tube.

 

[Smaug01]

i could use your advice.

Im not sure which one to get

I have the opporunity to buy a used Nikon 105 vr for 400
For the same price I can get a new Sigma 105 (HSM)

The Tamron 90 is a bit tricker as I can only find it new and more expensive (600 ish). I think I like this best (from image samples) but the price is too high for me new, so I would have to wait for a used deal.

The Nikon is only in consideration because I can get it for 400. I was instantly sold, but after looking at reviews and comparisons, it seems the sigma and tamron offer far superior image quality.

Im using a Nikon D7100.

What macro lens would offer the sharpest image and best contrast/ bokeh
And would you say I should consider buying the non vr/ older lens (saves about 100 to 150)

Youtube video I used for comparison

Thanks

If you prefer the images from the Tamron, then that is the one you should get. Otherwise, it will always nag at you; could that pic have been just a bit better for just a bit more money?

The fact that you can't find it used is a good sign, too: it means people hang onto them. I was facing the same thing when considering my 45 mm lens for my µ4/3 body. I decided in the end that the lack of good used ones was a good sign, just like a big and full parking lot at a restaurant.

Wait and save that bit more for the one you really want, it will save you money in the end. I had both Sigma and Tamron telephotos for my full frame gear in the past; they were both very good. Nikkors cost a LOT more and weren't appreciably better. In your case, the Nikkor is not as good, but is only affordable because it's used.

I would not go without VR on a modern telephoto lens, if it is available. For subjects that aren't fast-moving, it is a game-changer.

One last thing: it depends on what you shoot, but I find 90 mm to be a more useful focal length in general than 105.