DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

Just wondering if you can share your experiences with these 2 lens? I would shoot mainly macro (derhh) photos, closeups and use it for portraiture as well! Does the Sigma focus accurately or is the Canon a lot more accurate? Sharpness is what I'll be looking for so which lens do you think is sharper?

Cheers,

Dont forget to consider the Tamron SP 90mm!!!

It is the cheapest of the lot and has tested to be better than the Canon and the Sigma as a MACRO. I will vouch for its portrait abilites as well.
http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

Here is a translated version of the follow up test comparing the Canon, and the Di Tamron as well as the older Tamron
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nnplus.de%2Fmacro%2F100macro.html&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=

Just my two cents!

After looking at that review again I am thinking it might be time to offload my 180mm SIgma and get the Tamron, I no longer need the fast focus that I needed to cover my tele range before I got my 70-200mm VR.

I would go for the Tamron 90 as well. Great lens, very inexpensive.

Tamron

I took the pic below with the 105mm Sigma and after reading the test results that basically said it was crap I’m happy

That is a crazy picture...

gstark wrote:I would go for the Tamron 90 as well. Great lens, very inexpensive.

+1 from me also... But I wish I had never got rid of the Sigma 180

I will get another one day.

MATT

MATT wrote:+1 from me also... But I wish I had never got rid of the Sigma 180

I will get another one day.

MATT

Want mine MATT??? I love it, but I dont use it anywhere near enough....and I want the 90mm (although the 180 is good for bugs....grr for more time to go shooting)

sirhc55 wrote:I took the pic below with the 105mm Sigma and after reading the test results that basically said it was crap I’m happy

Great pic Chris!

As they say, none of the lenses were bad, just that some were better than others. I didnt find that review until after I bought my Sigma 180 (which a lot of people recommended over the Tamron) but I am still very happy with it, and it has produced some awesome shots for me as well.

I have the Canon 100 and am very happy with the results both macro (with or without ring flash) and poitraits but unable to comment on the others.
DebT

Still a hard choice to make... I'm torn between the 3 lens still..

Is there a place where I can rent the lens for a few hours to test them all?

aim54x wrote:

MATT wrote:+1 from me also... But I wish I had never got rid of the Sigma 180

I will get another one day.

MATT

Want mine MATT??? I love it, but I dont use it anywhere near enough....and I want the 90mm (although the 180 is good for bugs....grr for more time to go shooting)

Pm me a price if your serious, I dont know how much coin I am allowed to spend as I grabbed a 14-24.. BUt you never know..

TNTMAN, pending you location maybe you could attend a minimeet and I'm sure one of our wonderfull members would have something for you to try out, maybe all three if your lucky..

MATT

sirhc55 wrote:Tamron

I took the pic below with the 105mm Sigma and after reading the test results that basically said it was crap I’m happy

wowowow
is that real fire?? :O

A lady came and told me her 24-70mm at the macro setting (i think third life size) is sharper than the 100mm macro at the same magnification... and the 24-70L isn't that well regarded either... :s

Grev wrote:A lady came and told me her 24-70mm at the macro setting (i think third life size) is sharper than the 100mm macro at the same magnification... and the 24-70L isn't that well regarded either... :s

Sorry I refuse to take that comment seriously, IMHO a macro needs to be able to produce at lease 1:2 magnification. The Canon 100mm Macro will blow the 24-70L away when you get down to 1:1 (the 24-70 will need a few extension tubes I would believe) and that is what macro is about. I find it funny that someone will actually make that claim..it would be interesting to make that comparison though.

aim54x wrote:

Grev wrote:A lady came and told me her 24-70mm at the macro setting (i think third life size) is sharper than the 100mm macro at the same magnification... and the 24-70L isn't that well regarded either... :s

Sorry I refuse to take that comment seriously, IMHO a macro needs to be able to produce at lease 1:2 magnification. The Canon 100mm Macro will blow the 24-70L away when you get down to 1:1 (the 24-70 will need a few extension tubes I would believe) and that is what macro is about. I find it funny that someone will actually make that claim..it would be interesting to make that comparison though.

I though Grev was making a joke!

tntman wrote:I though Grev was making a joke!

I hope so!

Both are good lenses.

Although the Canon 24-70L really isn't that well regarded... Get the Sigma one instead. for both the 24-70 and the 105mm macro.

Grev wrote::P

Both are good lenses.

Although the Canon 24-70L really isn't that well regardeds... Get the Sigma one instead. for both the 24-70 and the 105mm macro.

I saw that review of the Sigma 24-70 and that looks/sounds good, but for the macro, I would be getting the Tamron 90mm

I think the wise decision is to wait for PMA next week. Hopefully Sigma and Tamron will have Canon mounts on display so I can test them on my own camera!

Will lens be available for test at the show?

I am not sure, someone will be able to answer that question, I am sure you will be able to compare the two if you went to teds or another camera store though