Macro Lenses: Tamron 90mm vs. Sigma 105mm

[JohnS.]

Hey guys,

Sorry if this topic has been beaten to death. I'm new to photography. Well anyways I'm looking to pick up a macro lens. I have a D40. I don't mind having a beginner DLSR since I'm a giant photo noob, I just don't have any great lenses with the exception of my 35mm which is pretty nice. Other than that, I have a regular 18-55 VR and 55-200 Non-VR which I am considering selling to fund this new macro lens.

Now I've read the Sigma has loud AF but that won't matter anyways since it doesn't auto focus on my D40. Which leads me to being really iffy on buying this. Manual focus sure is fun and you can create really neat and unique perspectives with it but I really don't have any experience with manual focus. I've always bought AF-S lenses. I don't prefer manual focus but I did have a 50mm AF for a short period of time and did enjoy it somewhat.

I have read good things about the Tamron. Huge plus side is the built-in autofocus motor. I would definitely enjoy using it more over a Non-AF lens (at least on a D40).

My biggest dilemma is B&H is selling a used (condition: 9) Sigma for $299 which is a fantastic deal considering I don't have a lot of money to play with. However, I found the Tamron at Adorama for slightly cheaper than B&H AND comes with a rebate: AF272NII700 Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 AF Macro Auto Focus Lens for Nikon AF - with 6 Year USA Warranty.

Which do you guys think I'd be more happy with? Budget is definitely a factor so I kind of want the-best-bang-for-your-buck lens.

 

[molested_cow1]

Not familiar with the lens that you are looking at, but I would recommend you to try MF lens on your camera first. I am used to 35mm SLRs' big full frame view finder which makes MF very easy (and enjoyable). I've tried to manually focus on DX cameras and it is quite challenging to get the right focus. A lot of the times, you think you had it until you blow it up on a monitor only to find it not in focus. IMO if you are using a DX camera, AF is almost a must.

 

[JohnS.]

I have noticed that quite a lot with my DX! It looks perfect through the viewfinder and then when I upload it onto my computer, it is no where near where I wanted it to be! This is why I prefer autofocus.

Someone also recommended the Tokina 100mm. Anyone have any input on that? How does it compare to the Sigma and Tamron?

 

[Overread20]

I would say go for the Tamron because it has AF (or the Tokina if it will AF on your camera body).

Overall most macro work itself is done with manual focusing anyway, because the tiny body and subject motions are too fine for most AF systems to keep up with plus the light loss at macro distances makes AF a little less accurate as well. However when it comes to manually focusing at further off distances and up to infinity macro lenses tend to be a lot harder than regular lenses to manually focus. This is because whilst they have a really fine and precise manual focus range at the close distances, their far off distances are very crude. A small turn on the focusing ring gives a big change to the plane of focus - and that means you've got to really get it spot on to work - and it is tricky because a slight twitch of the finger and its nudged out of focus.

So yes you can do it manually but I would say go for the lens that will AF because then you've got the choice of which to use and you get a lens that will be good for macro and regular shooting.

As for the quality of the Tokina 100mm macro as far as I know its optical quality is on par with the other macro lenses (overall they are all pretty much on the same field with most differences being minor and even just the result of copy variation within the lens line). I've no idea of its AF performance nor of its ability (or possible lack of) to AF on your nikon body.

 

[JohnS.]

I would say go for the Tamron because it has AF (or the Tokina if it will AF on your camera body).

Overall most macro work itself is done with manual focusing anyway, because the tiny body and subject motions are too fine for most AF systems to keep up with plus the light loss at macro distances makes AF a little less accurate as well. However when it comes to manually focusing at further off distances and up to infinity macro lenses tend to be a lot harder than regular lenses to manually focus. This is because whilst they have a really fine and precise manual focus range at the close distances, their far off distances are very crude. A small turn on the focusing ring gives a big change to the plane of focus - and that means you've got to really get it spot on to work - and it is tricky because a slight twitch of the finger and its nudged out of focus.

So yes you can do it manually but I would say go for the lens that will AF because then you've got the choice of which to use and you get a lens that will be good for macro and regular shooting.

As for the quality of the Tokina 100mm macro as far as I know its optical quality is on par with the other macro lenses (overall they are all pretty much on the same field with most differences being minor and even just the result of copy variation within the lens line). I've no idea of its AF performance nor of its ability (or possible lack of) to AF on your nikon body.

Thanks for the response!

I guess the Tokina won't AF on my D40. But I am having people tell me manual focusing is better. I don't know anything about it because of my lack of experience but thinking about it, I guess it does make more sense to manual focus with macro.

 

[Overread20]

Aye but remember that these lenses all work up to infinity - manual focusing might be the way to go for the macro distances, but the lenses are also good quality for regular subjects as well - and as I said having AF then really makes things a lot easier.

 

[JohnS.]

Aye but remember that these lenses all work up to infinity - manual focusing might be the way to go for the macro distances, but the lenses are also good quality for regular subjects as well - and as I said having AF then really makes things a lot easier.

Ah, gotcha. Good point. I guess the Sigma is the way to go then. I'll keep reading around for a while before making up my mind. Since it's Thursday and I won't be getting the lens until next week anyways, might as well take my time with choosing.

Thanks!

 

[Davor]

Well i can tell you the Tamron is an excellent lens, i have the older model of the 90mm but ive tested both and there is little or almost no difference except the built in motor. Up close your will achieve crisp photos, from far like previously mentioned is difficult to get focus on. I find my self manually focusing most of the time with my Macro when it comes to up close, it is very difficult to AF up close unless you have a moving object. I'd say go for the Tamron ive heard nothing but good things and my personal experience with it has been wonderful. If you would like i can dig up some Macro shots i have done recently for you to see the quality.

 

[JohnS.]

That would be awesome if you could Davor.

That's why I was thinking about getting the Tamron more. The manual focusing would be nice for macro and achieving the right focus. But the auto focus would be awesome for using it on regular objects. The biggest factor right now is money. There is a used Sigma 105mm for $299 which will save me over $100 from buying either lens brand new. Although Adorama has the Tamron for $409 with a $50 rebate. Money saved is still money saved though.

 

[Derrel]

How about looking for a used Tamron 90mm AF lens with the built-in motor (ie, one of the newer models for Nikon with the BIM)? I'm not familiar with the Tokina 100mm AT-X except from several very favorable reviews of it--I'm not sure if it will AF on the baby Nikons or not. Regardless, all three macro lenses are supposed to be pretty good optically. My choice would be whichever one, and I mean whichever one, will autofocus on your D40--THAT is the lens to buy.

 

[JohnS.]

How about looking for a used Tamron 90mm AF lens with the built-in motor (ie, one of the newer models for Nikon with the BIM)? I'm not familiar with the Tokina 100mm AT-X except from several very favorable reviews of it--I'm not sure if it will AF on the baby Nikons or not. Regardless, all three macro lenses are supposed to be pretty good optically. My choice would be whichever one, and I mean whichever one, will autofocus on your D40--THAT is the lens to buy.

Thanks! :thumbup:

I keep going back and forth but I will probably end up going with the Tamron 90mm for the AF.

 

[Dao]

Even I shoot macro with manual focus, but it is nice to have AF when needed for something else.

 

[vtgovind]

Thanks a lot. I have been using a Olympus SP 570 UZ for about 3 years and recently bought my first DSLR . Nikon 5100 and am in the process of building my lens library . Till now I bought all ( not many really ...just 2 ) Nikon lenses and for the macro was debating between the Sigma and Tamron . After reading quite a few threads in this site have decided on the Tamron . My thanks to many who have posted

Rgds

Govind