Sigma 150 Macro vs Tamron 90

Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
2,163
Location
BUCKEYE STATE
Anyone had any experience with these. I'm wondering what the differences might be other than the focal length. Is one superior over the other? Any information appreciated.

Thanks, Tom
 
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
2,874
Location
Ukraine, Europe
I've never used the 150/2.8, but you can't go wrong with the Tamron AF 90/2.8. This is one of the SHARPEST lenses I've ever shot with.
 
G

Gr8Tr1x

Guest
I used the 150mm 2.8 last year and it was an exceptionally sharp lens. I sold it to finance my 105mm VR. Both are nice, but for the price used, the 150mm can be had for around $450, the Sigma is a great deal.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
Anyone had any experience with these. I'm wondering what the differences might be other than the focal length. Is one superior over the other?
Focal length and consequent working distance are the primary differentiators - in other words, they're not really the same item, although they are both macro lenses.

They are both stunning in sharpness, color and bokeh. I'd put them as two of the top three macro lenses available to Nikon users. (The other is the 200/f4 AFD Micro-Nikkor.)

Other considerations:
- the Sigma is a "G" lens, meaning it has no aperture ring. Of no consequence unless you happen to be one of those who hasn't given up on old MF cameras, in which case you wouldn't be able to set apertures. (I fall into this category myself, as I still use an F2.)
- the Sigma has a tripod collar, the Tamron is small enough that it does not (nor does it particularly need one).
- the Tamron is noticeably lighter weight.

This one is from the Tamron, close to wide open (f/4, I think):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
502
Location
Georgia via Long Island, NY
Apples and oranges...both exceptional...both excel at what they're designed for. Kinda like trying to say which telephoto lens is better...300 f2.8 or 500 f4...depends on your style and what you're trying to photograph.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,336
Location
UK
owned both of these but sold the 150mm..as mentioned they are cracking lenses and not much between them optically..I just wasn't using the length of the 150mm and its quite heavy so went for the tamron.I'm now missing the extra reach but going to get the 180mm and not the 150mm..
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
2,163
Location
BUCKEYE STATE
Thank you Igor, Joshua and Brian. IQ of the lenses was my main concern. I will have to decide on the working distance I would prefer, although I am leaning toward the longer distance the 150 would offer at this time. From your comments and sample images, it looks as if either lens would do well.

Brian, thanks for the comprehensive comparisons and information on the two lenses. I appreciate your comments and insight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
2,163
Location
BUCKEYE STATE
Thank you jbear. I understand what you are saying about style and what I would be shooting.

Thank you twig for your point about the 150 doubling as a fast telephoto.

Thank you, Stuart, for your comments on the optical qualities of the two. Like you, I think I would like the extra working distance. Maybe I should consider the 180 also. It is reassuring to hear either lens can give excellent results if I do my part.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom