Macro Lens : Sigma 105mm/150mm, Tamron 90mm

I'm in the market for a macro/micro lens and at the moment can get either the Sigma 105mm OS HSM brand new or a Sigma 150mm OS HSM (used) for the same price

I missed out on the Tamron 90mm macro as I didn't have the cash ready to buy it from the same place (used)


I've dabbled with macro using macro adaptors on my 15-55 kit lens which gave some acceptable results, but having to be about 2-3 inches above isn't ideal and also the lack of light means either a good day or editing after to try and increase picture quality which isn't always ideal


At the moment its between the Sigma 150mm or Sigma 105mm, but as I can get the 150mm for the same money (used) and looking around its been reviewed as very sharp almost distortion free with the only downside being the price when new

I looked at the Tamron 90mm which sound ideal, but that was eventually sold. The Nikon 85mm is an option as well but the Sigma 150mm will give me the extra 'breathing space' for insects or crawling around in mud or nettles/brambles as I have had to in the past with the macro adaptors and standard lenses to get anywhere near


A bit of advice between the 150mm or 105mm would help. I'm looking at the Sigma 150mm as it will give me the range, but will that on a D3100 be a hinderance with its size when compared to the Sigma 105mm (the D7100 upgrade will have to wait a bit longer but will happen at some point)

I'll be using a Manfrotto 190XProB (thats another late Christmas present to me) with the 498RC2 ball head, macro isn't full time and will also be hand holding on occasion when out wandering to see what I come across


Thanks

I've got the Sigma 105mm and use it on mu FX lenses and find that it's just about perfect. It gives me 1:1 shots just fine, is super crisp, and it's just about the right focal length for most of what I want/need. I can use extension tubes and 2x converters if I need to get closer (snowflakes), but that's the exception. On a DX body like yours this would be fine. I'm trying to imagine working with a 150mm on my FX body and am thinking it's too much, so I can't imagine what a 225mm macro would be like (how the 150mm would act on your D3100). I say go with the 105mm unless your goal is to shoot flies eyes mold spores. You're still going to need to get that tripod in the mud with the 150.

Interesting lens choice. I am under the assumption that you decision will be based on cost. Performance wise, all macro lenses are sharp.

The 150mm provides more working distance for bugs but it's draw back is it's weight. The opposite applies to the 105mm.

Thats what I thought, I don't have a problem getting tripods dirty either. Standing in the middle of a large fast flowing stream in my wellies to get that waterfall shot doesn't bother me at all. But laying in nettles or catching myself on brambles as I just can't get close enough with macro adaptors on my 18-55 lens isn't ideal. There are times where a proper macro lens would make it so much easier to get close without getting close


The Sigma 105mm (used) went before I had the finances, same way as the Tamron 90mm. But for the price of a new Sigma 105mm I can get a good used Sigma 150mm

I'm just wondering if the larger macro lens is overkill or futurepoofing and not have that nagging doubt of "I really should have got that other lens now"

As for cost, I can buy a brand new Sigma OS OSM 105mm for the same cost of a used Sigma OS OSM 150mm


In a real world situation, considering I'm using an FX lens on a DX camera what would be likely minimum distances for the Sigma 105mm and the Sigma 150mm


I suppose there will be times when you need to get close, but can't due to the minimum working distance

If it's going to make you feel any better, I wan't the Nikon 200mm f4 macro lens.

Either way, you'll have a better experience with a real macro lens compared to using extension tubes.


Sent from my iPhone.

Just reading the advert a bit more closely the Sigma 150mm (used) doesn't have OS, so it looks like the decision is with the Sigma 105mm (new)

I know OS is no good when on a tripod, but if I'm hand held while out wandering then it will help me out a bit more than without



Thanks for the suggestions

It looks like the Tamron 90mm is going to be the choice, unless I can get a Sigma 105mm for the same price or cheaper


Now I know both can be used for portrait work, other than macro, but which is the better option. Go for one with AF-S and some kind of VR/VC, or a manual focus with no AF-S VR/VC

The Tamron 90mm macro with built-in motor is available quite easily, but using a D3100 without motor drive means I lose auto focus until I get that D7100 upgrade at some point (hopefully this year)

I can pick-up a good quality 2nd user Tamron 90mm macro 272E lens or earlier model Sigma 105mm macro without AF-S/VR pretty much anywhere for a good price, and much cheaper than new. It won't be a main lens, but will get used fairly frequently while out