Macro lens for non-macro photos

Does the addition of macro compromise anything on a lens that isn't necessarily used for macro photos? For example, the Sigma 70-200 2.8 comes in macro and non-macro, both for relatively the same price. What I'm wondering is, would getting the macro lens for the ability of macro (should I ever want to use it) hurt the lens in any way when I'm using it the majority of the time for non-macro, fast sports events?

only thing that comes to mind is they might be more expensive(sometimes) and might focus a bit slower(depends on the lens we're talking about and if the focus limiter is set).

For the specific lens you mentioned I cannot comment - but my Canon 100mm Macro works great for non-macro work.

Interesting. So, for two lenses that are almost the same price, there doesn't appear to be any reason not to get the macro version, unless there is in fact some slowdown of AF or compromise of image quality at non-macro FD's.

Neither Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is really a macro lens, they just add the word "macro" when the lens can focus closer than before. With Sigma, newer is generally better.

from http://dpreview.com …/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/

However macro lenses work fine for non-macro work. Many macro lenses make decent portrait lenses.

Interesting you posted that as I was just reading about it not being a true 1:1 macro lens. I suppose this answers my question about this. Thanks, all!

A lens does not have to go to 1:1 to make it a macro lens. Most macro lenses do not do that. Slower AF might sway you. The Sigma 150/2.8 macro lens has the fastest AF of any macro lens. People do sports in AF with it.

gasrocks wrote in post #11593444
A lens does not have to go to 1:1 to make it a macro lens. .

While I agree, I don't think any of Sigmas 70-200's come to mind when thinking of macro work. Some of their zooms go to 1:2, which is definitely good enough for many.