Present from the Tax Man... a macro lens

Braeden

Braeden

Suspended / Banned
Messages
553
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Today I received a nice cheque for over £400 from the tax man, so I think I have decided to complete my lens line up with a macro lens.

The Three contenders (in no particular order) are:

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro at £279
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro at £388
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di SP Macro at £280

I have read the reviews at Photozone and all 3 lenses fare very well, although they seem to prefer the Canon.

I know a couple of you have the canon lens, do any others of you have one of the other two and could you all give me your opinions please?
 
Well.....

I opted for the ef-s 60mm macro when I decided i wanted a close up lens.

It's very very sharp and with the f2.8 ap, it finds it's focus quickly in low light.

On the flip side, it also makes a great portrait lens

Not what you were after I realise, but it's another option ;)
 
I have the tamron 90.
It is an excellent lens, which is overlooked by many.



Here is a impartial review of the lens.

There are a couple of shots in this thread taken with this lens.
 
I have just got the Tamron too (from HK :D ).
Only used it a couple of times so far but I'm pleased with it. Some say its a bit slow to focus (I think the Sigma 105mm is similar), but most people use manual focus for real close-up shots I think.
Here's a pic I took today, Nikon D70, handheld, not cropped at all.
If I'd have taken my tripod I might have tried a bit closer and/or cropped it a bit too.

Rich

Bee.jpg
 
All of the 1:1 macro lenses are slow to focus, that includes the likes of canon & nikon.
 
... but the USM means it will focus slowly but quietly, maybe a consideration if using AF with wasps?!?!? Also, USM may give you full time manual.

Just another bean to add to the cooking pot. :)
 
Focus speed is irrelevant for macro, most of the time you'll be full manual anyway, if you're using it for macro. I went for the Canon simply because I got a great deal on it. If I hadn't I'd have went for the Tamron, image quality is at least on a par with the canon, some say it's better.
 
i've got the sigma 105 and its pretty good, cheaper than the canon offering too which is good, image quality for macros tends to be pretty good anyway regardless of who makes it but I was wondering quite what you get 'extra' with the canon 100 over the rest to justify a higher price tag...
 
but I was wondering quite what you get 'extra' with the canon
Click to expand...

CALC58.jpg


:whistle2:
 
:suspect1: I knew that.

;)
 
shiato storm said:
i've got the sigma 105 and its pretty good, cheaper than the canon offering too which is good, image quality for macros tends to be pretty good anyway regardless of who makes it but I was wondering quite what you get 'extra' with the canon 100 over the rest to justify a higher price tag...
Click to expand...
I posted this in another forum but thought it would handy to point out why the Canon costs more :)

The Canon lens has faster auto focus and whilst you don't use it for macro subjects it does comes in handy for portraits etc. It also has full time manual focus which means you don't have to move the AF/MF switch from AF to MF to focus manually.

The biggest downside of the Sigma and Tamron lenses is that the lens element extends when focusing, not really what you want when doing macro photograhy – The Canon does not extend, it has internal focus :)


So, in summary, the image quality is much the same between the lenses but the Canon feels better and is much easier to use.
 
SDK - Good point and one that i can not see why sigma have not addressed as they do so in the 150mm version of the macro, seems strange why they don't on the 105.
 
I have the Tamron, last time I looked it was only about £240 from one stop, thats where I got mine from
 
I never did end up buying a macro lens after all :bang:

However I have now decided that when I do get one it will be the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top