# Macro: Sigma vs. Tamron



## Talonted90 (Jan 17, 2009)

Hey all,
    I am looking to get a macro lens within the month.  As much as I would love to get the nikkor 105mm I just can't realistically afford it given my current budget.  I have heard great things about the Tamron 90mm as well as the Sigma 105mm.  This lens will be used predominantly for insects, flowers, reptiles/amphibians as well as many venemous species.  As much as I don't have a problem getting close to the venemous species I wouldn't mind being able to shoot from further away as an option.  Seeing as they are both similarly priced, what would you recommend and what else would you include for the ultimate macro package.  This will be getting a ton of use this summer as I will be in the cloud forests of Honduras for two months this summer doing biodiversity research.  My only reservations is that most of my shots will be of the animals in situ (as I found them) instead of bringing them back to a lightbox so trekking with a lot of camera gear may be a nuisance.  I had no problem last year where my most used lens was the 18-55 and while I got some amazing pictures I want the ability to focus much closer.

Thanks,
Andrew


----------



## Garbz (Jan 18, 2009)

Ever considered getting a the older Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF D? Should be available for cheap on ebay from some people who upgraded to the new one. It is optically as good as the new version, naturally slower to focus, but excellent for macros none the less since manual focus is often the name of the game anyway, and doesn't suffer the focus hunting issue of the new one either.

Just another option.


----------



## baturn (Jan 18, 2009)

I agree with Garbz--except-- I have been looking for the older Nikkor for a month or so and no luck so far. So I am also seriously considering the Sigma 105. Everything I've heard or read is good.


----------



## Boz Mon (Jan 18, 2009)

Tamron 90mm f/2.8


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 18, 2009)

^that's a cool image

In the Nikoncafe the Tamron seems to be the winner.  I have an old sigma and it's great too.  I don't think you'll go wrong with either.  There doesn't seems to be as much sample variation with primes.


----------



## Overread (Jan 19, 2009)

I agree that you really won't go wrong with either lens-  with current macro prime lenses on offer there really are no bad options barring some of the 50mm choices. 

As well as a lens what flash options do you have access to? Idealy you want something like a nikon speedlite flash *I don't know nikon models/makes* or a macro ring flash if you can afford one. A speedlite with a decent diffuser will give you good lighting whilst a ringflash is the "ideal" macro light source.

I would encourage you to check out the sigma 150mm macro if at all possible (though it might be out of your budget) since that would give you the option of getting further from the subject (poison!!). Another cheaper option would be a 1.4 teleconverter with  a macro lens - that would give you a bit more range and a bit more magnification (only a problem if your making record shots and need to know your exacte magnification). Though you will have to check which teleconverters will fit which lenses


----------



## Yves Gaudet (Jan 20, 2009)

The built, the focus, the image quality (on an aps size sensor), the warranty.

L.L.Lozeau - Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG Macro EX for Canon


----------

