Tokina 100 mm macro vs. Sigma 105 macro

I wonder if I would see any practical differences in photographs made by these lenses. Both are sharp stopped down.
Both focus slowly - but is there any difference in focus accuracy?
How do owners of the Tokina like it?
What do owners of the Sigma think of it?
I decided that I want to get a lens at this focal length, but I am undecided.
The only think keeping me from the Canon at this point is the size and weight for general (non macro) use.

I focus by hand for macro and while it is a slow process it works. This is from last week with an enlarging lens on a bellows.

I have an old Vivitar series 1 lens in Minolta MD mount. It is a very sharp lens, but it is not an easy process to adapt it to Canon crop mounts.
I expect to use manual focus for macro use, but wondered about how well the two lenses work for general use as well.
I'd like to hear from some users about how much they like these two lenses.

Are these lenses reliable and relatively free of defects? I have read a number of online reviews from users saying the Tokina has given them mechanical problems.
Another review site described focusing errors with AF at a distance with the Sigma. I don't mind slow AF focusing from a macro lens, since it will be used with MF for macro, but I do want to be able to use it as a telephoto for normal distances with AF (my Sigma 50 macro works fine). I would like accurate AF for distance shooting.
Are users happy with their Tokina macros?
Are users fine with their Sigma macros?

Some of the members here have the Sigma 105 and it produces beautiful macro photography.
Lord V - nice work online.

Is the AF accurate for distance photography with this lens?

At least one website said that there were lots of out of focus shots with this lens.