Thoughts on sigma tamron nikkor macros

I have tried the Sigma 105mm F2.8 Ex macro. It went back due to D70/SB600
problems...the Sigma would underexpose.

I have the Nikkor 60mm micro, and just got the Tamron 90mm F2.8 SP macro.

They all have different photo characteristics. The Sigma was tack sharp,
almost brutal in some pictures, and spectacular in others. I could have
lived with it. Build quality was ok, except for the focusing mechanism
noise. It did not sound happy.

The Tamron build quality is good. Noise like the Nikkor, nice and smooth.
It's pictures are "mild and mellow" compared to the Sigma. The sharpness is
the same when you zoom in in Photoshop, maybe just a tad less than the
Sigma. But the Tamron has a "smoother" look. Not bad.
The Sigma used 58mm filters which I had, the Tamron 55mm. The dealer gave
me an adapter so I would not have to buy another collection of filters for
55mm. The Tamron lens hood, a bayonet mount, fits over the 58mm filters
with adapter no problem.

The Nikkor 60mm i have had for a long time is perfect picturewise and build
wise. But it is too short for my nature photos. But the images are
perfection. I prefer them to Tamron or Sigma.

I am hoping the 105mm Nikkor micro would be like the 60mm Nikkor. I may get
a used one on ebay and try it out. I really did not want a used lens with
no return policy. The Tamron dealer did say I could bring the lens back (he
would not be happy though). So maybe I can do a comparison.

I am just doing this rant to give some info to people who were in the same
boat I was about macros for nature photography. If you have a Nikon digital
camera, I would not go for the Sigma. But tryout the Tamron.

If anyone has compared the 105mm Nikkor macro to the Tamron I just got let
me know, perhaps by email, or please post.

Thanks!

Fred,

I had a Sigma 105mm macro lens with a Nikon D100 and had no problems.
Manual focusing for macro work is typical, so autofocusing noise with a
macro lens is usually irrelevant. All the lenses you mentioned are supposed
to be excellent; it depends mostly on your budget and any incompatability
issues. Enjoy.

"Fred B." <spamfred.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Loahd.242397$as2.169034@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
 > I have tried the Sigma 105mm F2.8 Ex macro. It went back due to D70/SB600
 > problems...the Sigma would underexpose.
 >
 > I have the Nikkor 60mm micro, and just got the Tamron 90mm F2.8 SP macro.
 >
 > They all have different photo characteristics. The Sigma was tack sharp,
 > almost brutal in some pictures, and spectacular in others. I could have
 > lived with it. Build quality was ok, except for the focusing mechanism
 > noise. It did not sound happy.
 >
 > The Tamron build quality is good. Noise like the Nikkor, nice and smooth.
 > It's pictures are "mild and mellow" compared to the Sigma. The sharpness
is
 > the same when you zoom in in Photoshop, maybe just a tad less than the
 > Sigma. But the Tamron has a "smoother" look. Not bad.
 > The Sigma used 58mm filters which I had, the Tamron 55mm. The dealer gave
 > me an adapter so I would not have to buy another collection of filters for
 > 55mm. The Tamron lens hood, a bayonet mount, fits over the 58mm filters
 > with adapter no problem.
 >
 > The Nikkor 60mm i have had for a long time is perfect picturewise and
build
 > wise. But it is too short for my nature photos. But the images are
 > perfection. I prefer them to Tamron or Sigma.
 >
 > I am hoping the 105mm Nikkor micro would be like the 60mm Nikkor. I may
get
 > a used one on ebay and try it out. I really did not want a used lens with
 > no return policy. The Tamron dealer did say I could bring the lens back
(he
 > would not be happy though). So maybe I can do a comparison.
 >
 > I am just doing this rant to give some info to people who were in the same
 > boat I was about macros for nature photography. If you have a Nikon
digital
 > camera, I would not go for the Sigma. But tryout the Tamron.
 >
 > If anyone has compared the 105mm Nikkor macro to the Tamron I just got let
 > me know, perhaps by email, or please post.
 >
 > Thanks!
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->