Macro Choice

[Geof777]

I have posted similar questions on a couple of other sites
The bottom line, for me, is this.
Which, if any, do folks think is a better alround macro lens
between
Sigma 105; Tamron 90; Tokina 100.

I am limiting in, pretty much, to that sort of size and focal length
after much deliberation and weighing of pros and cons etc

I would appreciate any comments and first hand experiences
so far I have only tried out a Sigma 105 over a year ago

[Fen]

For what brand of camera?

The Sigma is a cracking lens, but if you are a Nikon user... I would also suggest the Nikkor 105mm micro. Stunning lens and worth the extra. As well as macro work I also use it for portraits and event photography

[kevb]

Sigma 105 for Nikon works gr8 for me -vg macro lens - bit of a pain with hoods and filters

Kev

[Geof777]

Sorry - forgot I have no Signature with equipment listing...
It's a Nikon D80
Afraid the Nikon is not a option for me - to expensive, and too heavy
otherwise a superb lens.
I have looked at pros and cons of the 3 listed - as well as a few others - almost
gave up but decided I need to set a compromise and just go for it.
All 3 have good and bad points.. Just wondered if people (like Kev) have
1st hand experience - or of anything else similar - and my UK case my target
was around the £300= mark and not exceeding £400=
Around the 400g mark and not exceeding about 500 - 550g

[Misty]

Ive got a 105 sigma, a great lens, its best to try them out as there is different one,s to buy,

[Geof777]

Thanks Elaine - I hope to at least try those 3, as I said - they each have good points
I recently found a site where you can read some pretty full tests on all of these.....
interesting!!

[Geof777]

Maybe others might find this a useful, helpfull site:

http://lenstip.com//Main_page

I was able to do some research without getting too embroiled technically
yet enough to make a half educated assesment

[CliffS]

What about a Nikon 50mm F1.8, with a set of Kenko tubes. I know there is either a 'love it' or 'hate it' camp for this combination, but around £200 pound will do the business. Warehouse Express are doing the F1.8 at £107.00 Kenko auto tubes are about £90 on FleBay, and you get a quality, fast, 50mm prime lens to boot

The only down side I have found, working distances can be a bit short and you need to manual focus, as you would, so I'm told, on any macro lens for best results? . . . . but thats Macro

CliffS

[Fen]

The kenko tubes are quiet good.

But I would suggest a dedicated macro lens... Go for the Sigma. I used to use the one I had on a Canon 20D and got some cracking shots.

[Geof777]

Thanks Cliffs & Fen
Working distance was part of the dilema originally
I was getting myself in all sorts of knots over this.
The 50mm is a great deal - but I would need to be way too close

My old Sigma 17 - 70 did a quite good job of close ups - but had to get way to
close when it came to timid insects & the like. (Sadly I sold this on!!)
- with a skylight filter on the front I could just touch the subject
at 70mm full close up!!

Both my Nikon 16- 85 & Tamron 28 - 200 do a good job ~ up to their limit ...
(1:4.5 ish and 1:4 ish) But the Nikon is almost too close - I can creep up in stealth
mode and get away with it. Thats around 14.9 inches
The Tamron is 19.2 inches and just about perfect - butterflys? no worries.
I was considering using the Kenko rings on that....(??) But I have been told of some mathematical
calculation relating to this which means I would get less additional magnification/closer focus
at 200 than the amount extra it gives to a 50mm - so it was getting messy!!

All 3 of my choices are between 11 and 12 inches approx closest focus.
(But bear in mind the lens extends!!)
The Sigma 150 is the same in distance to the Nilkon 16 - 85 - so not enough gain to warrant
the huge extra cost, plus it is too heavy for my liking.(- but non extending lens)

So I decided to keep it to the range of around 100mm as a compromise.

Currently the Sigma 105 is in third position from my homework - but with each one
seeming to have an achilles heel of some kind or other.
My other option was a 2x converter on the Tamron - but the prob with that is big loss of light.

So it seems whatever I decide will require some kind of compromise
which seems a bit of a pity when you consider DSLR is supposed to be a bit more specialised
but my daughter can get great closeups on her P&S bridge camera.

[blondeandgorgeous]

Why not try a 1 x 4 or 1 x 7 converter = not so much light loss as a 1 x 2

[Geof777]

Thanks - definately something to also consider.
I am trying for true macro - ie 1:1 if I can get it.

I already have a Sigma 70 - 300 which is around
1:2 or therabouts - but it is the opposite problem in that
the min macro focus distance is too long and I find it very
hard to hold steady or even find the subject as there is a
lock which stops me zooming out to locate it before
zooming back in - all generally awkward and requiring the
use of a tripod always.

The slightly smaller converters are something to try in the shop
I think
Thanks

[senninha]

I don't have a FULL blown macro but I have a Nikon 35-135 AIS MF lens with a macro setting at the 135 end.......not 1:1 but it's super sharp......& only cost me £49....
It will get a GOOD workout on Wednesday at Butterfly World...
But IF I were in the market for a full blown macro it would be the Nikon 105 I guess........from what I've read about it anyway.
I would never buy a Sigma BRAND new.......their warranty ain't worth the paper it's written on....
But the Tamron 90 is a cracking lens from images I've seen taken with it.


Rob

[Geof777]

I don't have a FULL blown macro but I have a Nikon 35-135 AIS MF lens with a macro setting at the 135 end.......not 1:1 but it's super sharp......& only cost me £49....
It will get a GOOD workout on Wednesday at Butterfly World...
But IF I were in the market for a full blown macro it would be the Nikon 105 I guess........from what I've read about it anyway.
I would never buy a Sigma BRAND new.......their warranty ain't worth the paper it's written on....
But the Tamron 90 is a cracking lens from images I've seen taken with it.

Rob

Interesting Rob
(I used to have a Tamron35~135 adaptall II in my film days - nice range)
The Nikon is a splendid lens - however it is too heavy in 2 departments
Weight @ 751.7g
Price - well - about £220= beyond my absolute upper budget.

The Tamron is level pegging 1st choice against the Tokina:
Tamron wins in terms of lightnes. It is sharpest over a slightly smaller f-stop range
being a bit weaker at F2.8 - but has a rotating end to the lens
Tokina is also super sharp - but down to f2.8 as well - it's a bit on the heavy side - but the
end of the lens doesn't rotate.
The Sigma is maybe not as sharp at any point - but is more evenly consitant over
a wider range of f-stops.
It's tricky!

[RichardH]

I've used the Sigma 105mm and agree it's a good lens. I now have a Sigma 150mm macro HSM and a Sigma 24mm f/1.8 macro. I'd suggest you look on the flickr groups for the lenses you're interested in to see images taken with them and what owners are saying about them. If you buy second-hand, those lenses are bound to hold their value, so you can easily sell-on again.

[Geof777]

Sigma is my reserve choice at the moment for a couple of reasons - but it is consitant I believe.
I think I will buy one of the 3 (and then afterwards get either some close up rings and/or a converter
as well).
Images on the Sigma have that 'Sigma look' and are generally pretty 'nice'
Images on the other 2 are often sharper generally.
Tamron is lighter - which may well win the day
Tokina lens doesn't rotate - Tokina is the sharpest at f2.8