Sigma has a new macro out that according to "reports" can perform equally as well as the Tamron 90mm 2.8 which can go head to head with Canon,s 1002.8 as I have seen in slide comparisons. The Sigma is a little cheaper than the others and supposedly has better body workmanship than the Tamron. Canon is always good but $500+ is a chunk of change for me right now. Thank YOU!!

-- jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), August 15, 1999

Answers

I have been using a Sigma 105/2.8 EX Macro for several months now (together with a Pentax MZ-3 body). I think the lens is one of the better (optically) lenses I have ever used ( perhaps slightly soft on 2.8 and 4; super sharp and contrasty when stopped down; superb macro performance, nice "feel" on manual focusing) - seems to be well-made also! Very much recommended - for the price it is a steal!

-- Andrzej Poniatowski (audiomix@algonet.se), August 16, 1999.

Agree with the above. I've put probably thirty rolls of film through this lens in the past three months, and (IMO) it's an extraordinary value. The Canon lens may be exceptional, also; I haven't used it, though most of what I've heard implies that macro lenses are pretty good in general. There's been some debate as to the bokeh of this lens; others hate it, I've never noticed anything objectionable, and I do a lot of shooting wide open. Build quality has been great. Recommended.

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), August 16, 1999.

I tried both EX- Sigma and Tamron on my EOS, and there was a minor difference in color rendition, but the only big difference was in my mind just bokeh. I really enjoy the background blur of this Tamron lens and picked it over Sigma. Very sharp, very nice. Build-quality was better in Sigma I think, though I had these objektives only for one day. Anyway there has been no problems with Tamron. Tuukka J.

-- Tuukka Jylhd (Tuukkac@hotmail.com), August 17, 1999.