Sigma 105 macro lens.

Had a play with an older version some years ago along with a Tamron 90mm. Found a Tamron before a Sigma (2nd hand) so ended up with that. Would have been just as happy with the Sigma. Now have the Nikkor VR instead. Only really upgraded since I had a good offer for the Tamron and fancied a change (and VR for non-macro use.)
 
I've had the older Sigma and now have the latest OS version. I really rate the OS version. The older version was very good, but the rendering/colours were a bit 'dated' somehow for me.
 
I really rate it for the price. Went from an old non OS 150 to this new 105 :thumbs:
 
snerkler said:
I've had the older Sigma and now have the latest OS version. I really rate the OS version. The older version was very good, but the rendering/colours were a bit 'dated' somehow for me.
Click to expand...

Paulie-W said:
I really rate it for the price. Went from an old non OS 150 to this new 105 (y)
Click to expand...
Thanks Snerkler and Paul, have you done much Macro with lens. It will be main use.
 
Nod said:
Had a play with an older version some years ago along with a Tamron 90mm. Found a Tamron before a Sigma (2nd hand) so ended up with that. Would have been just as happy with the Sigma. Now have the Nikkor VR instead. Only really upgraded since I had a good offer for the Tamron and fancied a change (and VR for non-macro use.)
Click to expand...
I was tempted with Nikon, is it worth the extra i kept asking myself.
 
wallyboy said:
Thanks Snerkler and Paul, have you done much Macro with lens. It will be main use.
Click to expand...
its not my main genre, but have taken quite a few shots. Not just macro either.

wallyboy said:
I was tempted with Nikon, is it worth the extra i kept asking myself.
Click to expand...
Never tried it so can't comment. From other reviews I'd seen it didn't appear to be which is why I went with the Sigma.
 
Excellent lens, loads of pros but no cons that i can think of!
 
Macro isn't really something I've tried properly but just got a sigma the other week with a view to using it in the summer.
Had one before but sold it due to not using it.
Certainly haven't heard of anyone complaining about it.
 
Not had mine long(newer os version) had a tamron 90mm af a few years ago and wanted to try macro again. Very impressed so far and can't see the Nikon being any better for a lot more £££££. Read many reviews first and all good.
 
I don't profess to be great at macro so the lens is capable of better than this, but these are probably my best shots taken with the Sigma 105mm Macro OS. (all single shot on live subjects)


DSC_9588 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_9577 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_8759 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_8056 2 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
wallyboy said:
Thanks Snerkler, can't see £400 worth of quality between the two. The decision i am trying to make really is will it be worth the money for Sigma, as opposed to what i use now a 55-300 nikon lens, with a raynox DCR250 clipped to the front,
Click to expand...
The raynox is good, that's what I started with. But a proper macro lens is much better, and easier to use imo.
 
There is very little between all the newer macro lenses really.

Had both Tamron / Sigma and played many times with Canon too.

All top draw quality wise only issue I've ever had was Tammy picked up some fungus on element though was never in any wet conditions. Sigma was great too.
 
I've got a raynox, and had the 105. The raynox is good, but as said the 105 is better, and makes a good portrait lens too. I just didn't use either much to be honest, so I sold the 105 and bought a 24-120 Nikon which suited my needs better.
If macro is your thing, definitely get the 105.
 
wallyboy said:
Thanks Snerkler and Paul, have you done much Macro with lens. It will be main use.
Click to expand...

I tend to use mine more on bad weather days, and Macro Mondays (flickr) has got me using it more :)
 
Just to throw another into the mix have a look at the Tokina 100mm f2.8, I spent ages reading reviews on the various macro lenses and chose this one, I've only had it a month and love it, it's a great portrait lens too.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I've got a raynox, and had the 105. The raynox is good, but as said the 105 is better, and makes a good portrait lens too. I just didn't use either much to be honest, so I sold the 105 and bought a 24-120 Nikon which suited my needs better.
If macro is your thing, definitely get the 105.
Click to expand...

I use a A Raynox 250 on my Old Sigma 105 plus tubes on M4/3

Subject about 2.5mm long handheld single shot using flash

Springtail Dicyrtomina saundersi by Alf Branch, on Flickr
 
wallyboy said:
Thanks Snerkler, can't see £400 worth of quality between the two. The decision i am trying to make really is will it be worth the money for Sigma, as opposed to what i use now a 55-300 nikon lens, with a raynox DCR250 clipped to the front,
Click to expand...

The Nikon has better build quality, quieter/faster focusing and suffers from obvious CA while the Sigma is sharper.

Just buy the Sigma, you won't regret it.
 
As foggy says i bought the Sigma, ordered last night, arrived ariond 2pm today, had a few shots around garden manual focus, find it the best way to go after using dcr250 using this method,, first impressions, alot easier than raynox, itching to get some bugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top