I have the Sigma, and love the lens for normal use. In my opinion it is the best consumer lens in this range, all others being waaayy softer over 200mm. However, I was never happy with any of my macro shots. They were all fuzzy, soft and/or not focussed well. I eventually surmised that this was due to a) having to be at a zoom lenses softest focal length to do macro b) that focual length being 300mm which required superhuman stability for longer exposures and c) the widest aperture not being anywhere near wide enough to focus accurately.
The only solution was a dedicated macro lens. The Sigma 105 is superb and has resolved all my issues. At F2.8 the image in the viewfinder is much brighter and the DOF is smaller so more accurately shows the point of focus. The image is much sharper due to the fact that it is a superb prime lens specially built for macro and with a shorter focal length more stable on a tripod. I honestly don't think you will get the macro quality you want from any of the consumer zooms that you are looking at, so buy based on normal shooting - at this the Sigma wins hands down. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 21 January 2003 21:03 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: 70-300 1:2 macro: Tamron vs. Sigma > > > > Hi All, > > I wonder if any of you have experiences of either the Sigma > 70-300 f/4-5.6 Apo > Macro Super or the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 LD 1:2 Macro AF lens > - or preferably > both. Which do you think is better in terms of optical and > build quality? They > cost roughly the same, but the Tamron's macro function can be > engaged through a > broader focal length range (180-300 mm), whereas the Sigma's > is fixed at the > longest end. Any experiences? > > Thanks: > Peter Farkas > >
