Canon vs Tamron vs Sigma... ~100mm macro

[benyl]

Hi guys,

Did some searching before posting this. I am a noob to all of this so bear with me.

Can anyone give me a comparison between the Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 105mm?

I know many of you will say the Canon is the best, but I have also heard good things about the Tamron. Price is not really an issue, although I want the best bang for my buck.

Important to me is sharpness. I heard you can also use these types of lenses for portraits... where you don't necessarily want sharpness.

Any opinions?

Thanks,

B

[helmus]

Try this link:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1029&page=1

probably you get a answer there. :D
Regards
Helmut

[benyl]

Thanks for the link

This is what I found:

http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

[helmus]

Have just found this:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

Regards
Helmut

[tamash]

Hi Benyl,
I have the older Canon 2.8 Macro (non USM) and have found it to be tack sharp. Unlike the newer version now sold at B&H, this version has a deeply recessed front element (like the Tamron) which has the benefit of not needing a lens hood. It also works well for me for portraits (I sometimes use a 58mm Nikon Soft I filter depending on the subject), but it's focussing is a bit slow for sports photography (for which I used this lens before I got a longer L zoom <insert laughter here>). To my eye, the picture quality is top notch (i.e. not exceeded by my 70-200L 2.8IS), but then again it's a prime, so it's not a fair comparison. The lens is solid and heavy duty in construction.

If you don't need the USM focus speed, you may find this version of the lens a very good choice on the secondary market. I've seen them for around $300+ in very good shape.

Best Regards,
Bill

[Phil Hall]

I have the Sigma 105 macro. It is the only non canon lense that I have kept. Great for flowers and other similar shots.