Nice channel, good videos, good quality, good filming, good editing, good testing and some comedy thrown in.. all the factors needed for good TH-cam content :)
Best review on TH-cam so far … precisely and straight to the point … I don’t miss examples of macro shots like others do … it’s more interesting what these lenses offer on top and if you can use them for other purposes … well done … love your humor!
Thanks. Though broadly speaking, image quality at f/8 and f/11 is usually pretty good on most lenses as this is the "sweet spot". The challenge is making a lens that performs well wide open. If it can do that, then it's almost certainly going to be good at narrower f-stops. Plus, I'm a portrait photographer so I'm testing these lenses on how good they are at taking portraits above all else. I hope you found the video useful anyway! Thanks for watching 👍
@@TomCalton I got your point, however, since Tokina is significantly cheaper than the other two competitors, it would be nice to know the sharpness quality at f8 or f11 for such a particular work. Generally speaking, I believe Tokina makes relatively good lenses. When testing the 85mm f1.8 Tokina, I found it has a good image quality as the Sony. Here is my video if you’re interested th-cam.com/video/LznQUKMihXk/w-d-xo.html
You did a good job. The only complains I‘ve got is the image test. Usually you don‘t use Macro Lenses at f 2.8 because of the shallow deph of field. You use them betreen f 5.6 and f 11. So I would like to know the image quality at f 8 or so.
Tried sigma 105 dg dn with a6600, compared to sony FE 90mm and tiny laowa 65mm, at F8 sigma had the worst image quality, while at F4 had the best, sold sigma because F4 is often too shallow for macro, mostly using F/5.6-8 and as a portrait lens sigma 56mm 1.4 and sony 85mm 1.8 felt much better option with much more reliable AF.
I would go for the Tokina if all was required was a general lens. Shoot ALOT of small stuff for Ebay for example. Save the money. Tougher choice on the top end. Have the Sony 50mm macro and have zero complaints.
Thanks for the comment. I agree - if you're looking for a cheap macro then the Tokina is an OK option, if you can put up with the image quality and slow/noisy AF. Although my pick would be the Sony, the Sigma is still a great option, so you can't go wrong really.
2023 update: I chose the Sigma over the Sony. The Sony is an unchanged lens since 2015 when it was first released. I wont pay a premium price for a now eight -year old optical design, eight-year old focus motor tech in 2023.. The Sony lacks the de-clickable aperture ring of the Sigma which I love. And the Sigma has tested sharper than the Sony in all the MTF-standard sharpness tests. I use the focus limiting switch and have absolutely no focus issues with the Sigma in lower light. Part of your focus issues may be because you are using an older 2020 Sony body. I even have insect subject-recognition on AI autofocus now in 2023. And the rectangular bokeh balls of the Sony are just unattractive to me. And the Sigma is rated by top testers as a better dual macro/portrait lens over the Sony 90mm macro lens. . Nothing really bad about the venerable Sony 90mm macro, just time and tech have moved on. Sony is working on an optically better, and faster focusing new 70mm f2.8 macro lens. FYI I have owned Sony A6500, A7RII, A7RIII, A7III, A9 , A7RIV and currently I own A7RV, A1, A7SIII and the Sigma works great with all three of these. Cheers and best to you in 2023. .
agreed, the quality of your channel is amazing. Would like a little more side by side on the image quality and also would like to see the focus breathing of the lenses. But the quality of your channel is comparable with much bigger channels, a matter of time my friend...
Thanks Steven! Appreciate you taking the time to comment! My reviews have evolved dramatically since I released this video and you'll be happy to hear that I now include a bunch of other tests within my reviews (including focus breathing). I also try to include a lot more photos with comparisons where applicable. Thanks again for the feedback ☺️
Coming back to this great comparison as I've sold my old A-mount macro and looking into a replacement. Most reviews focus only on image quality and declare the Sigma the (clear) winner. When I do a personal comparison and, like you, add in handling (OSS, AF/MF clutch, AF performance) the Sony is actually way ahead of the Sigma overall for my needs - especially now that here in the UK the price difference has closed a lot.
Hope you found the video useful! The Sigma is still very good, but yeah, I definitely prefer the Sony when it comes to handling. It's a really nice lens!
The Laowa 100mm is MF only and is 2:1 macro, not 1:1, so it didn't really fit in to this group. But maybe it's something we can look at separately in a future video? 😊
Tom Calton good point. For me AF isn’t necessary for macro, neither is 2:1. It’s the price that makes it a contender. Hard to justify buying a macro when it’s only used occasionally so I’m considering cheaping out
It used to be that with a macro lens, corner to corner sharpness was a must - after all you were supposed to do copy work with it. However, these days how many people document stamps and coins with these lenses? So paying weight and size for this may not be a great design decision. On the other hand, the Sigma, being newer, must have some unique selling point and this is a good valid place to shine.
So the new sigma 105 for e mount replaces the 105 for full frame? Friends us the sigma (old) but on full frame. So don't I want a 70mm macro lens to be equivalent on my 6300? What options are there for that? Presumably going to be smaller, lighter, cheaper?
Nice review Tom! Well done. My two cents here. I have the Sony 90mm and love it for the most part. The one thing I don’t like about it though is the harsh structure of out of focus highlights. Sometimes out of focus bokeh balls have an ugly inner structure onion ring look which really bothers me in some situations. Overall though the bokeh is generally nice and smooth especially for portraits. I do also wish it were 100mm or 105mm. Hoping there may be a something like a Sony GM 105mm f/2 macro released in the future.
I was considering getting the sigma because 105mm over the 90mm because it allows you to get a bit closer when shooting tiny subjects without being all over it but the OSS on the 90mm makes it much easier and the AF/MF switch on the focus ring makes it much easier to shoot. I was able to get 90mm for $800 from the greentoe app new so I didnt have to pay more to get it. Anyway I loved your video, and thank you for making my choices easier.
It kind of depends what you need a macro lens for. The Sony is a great all-around lens with OSS and 1:1 macro capability; it can easily be used for portraits, bugs in the field, general telephoto, etc. The Sigma on the other hand is a standout for copy work / film negative scanning, where you use manual focus only and need the absolute best possible sharpness and image quality across the frame. Most people don't need a copy lens, but if you do, the Sigma beats the Sony.
With the image being a little sharper on the Sigma, do you think it would do a better job for film scanning? That's going to be my primary use at first for it. Once I've scanned my old film, it would be for both macro and portrait and other photos.
Thanks, I have the Sigma and miss image stabilization, and I get annoyed with the focus hunting in low light even after setting the limiting switch. I am thinking about getting the Sony and this helped a lot. Your review is not only informative, it is entertaining.
Hi there, really appreciated your comparisons. I could not find very useful information regarding Sony 90 autofocus while shooting fast movement subjects, such as a dog running or some sport action. I'd be interested in a (reasonably) fast prime telephoto lens for aps-c (a6500). The sony fe 85 1.8 would be a great choice for its fast autofocus, but i'd love to get the 90 2.8 for its plus of being a (very good) macro lens as well. But can it be usable to get decent focused pictures shot at fast shutter speed? (For outdoors shots). I'm currently using sigma 18-35 with MC-11 adaptor, and i missed so many shots because of its not reliable autofocus even in good light condition...i don't think it can be way worse than my lens :D Thank you!
Hey, thanks for watching! Unfortunately I won't be testing these lenses again, unless something else comes out that needs to be tested in the range. Sorry!
Tom, Ive been reading lots of reviews of this lens. I will be using this lens strictly for close up insect macro. So naturally many of the features discussed don't matter to me. I generally shoot in manual and move the camera back and forth to fine tune focus depth. I also NEVER shoot at F/2.8. Min is F/8 for more DOF. Everyone compares the sharpness to the Sony at F/2.8. I need to know how it compares at F/8. Maybe the Sony surpasses it? Did you do any sharpness comparisons at higher apertures? btw- keep up the great work on your videos.
Thanks for your comment and watching the video. Unfortunately I didn't test these lenses at anything other than f/2.8 as I was conducting this test as a portrait photographer rather than a macro photographer, as these focal lengths are actually really nice for portraits and the macro feature is a handy bonus in some situations. I may be wrong (I'm sure someone will correct me if I am) but at f/8, I doubt there will be much between these lenses. Typically, as you close down the aperture the image quality will increase (better sharpness, less vignetting, etc etc) so testing lenses wide open is usually the done thing because this is where the lens will be at it's "weakest". And, if it can deliver good results wide open, then it's fairly safe to say that as you close the aperture down, the results will only get better towards the middle of the aperture range (between f/8 and f/11 is usually the sweet spot where performance is best). I hope this helps and thanks again for checking out my video 👍
That's a coincidence, just bought slightly used Sony 90mm Macro G OSS this afternoon, then saw your comparison tonight! I knew about the Sigma which would have cost me slightly more, but no steady-shot and heavier. Think I made the right decision. Thanks for your humour and good quality reviews. Personally I would prefer to see actual photos taken with the cameras. ;-)
Where'd you find the used lens? If the Sony was around the same price as the Sigma, I would strongly consider it since it has OSS plus that clutch system is just a cut above.
@@groundcontrol6876 I bought a few Sony lenses on eBay. Have all turned out well except one which did not include the box. Between 50% and 70% of new price. No more than 2 years old, hardly used.
I wish there had been a bit better look at the actual macro things, like focus breathing and IQ when at the minimum focusing distance. Breathing especially, as it can cause issues when doing focus stacking to compensate for the razor-thin DoF.
Watched this to see if switching from my Sony to the Sigma would be worthwhile. Looks like I'm safe sticking to my Sony. Macro focusing on the Sony is less than stellar, but if the Sigma doesn't improve on that, no point switching. Shame, as this is a comparison of macro lenses, that you did no comparisons of that usage.
Thanks for your feedback. I did mention performance whilst shooting using macro at 07:37. To be honest, the performance was much the same as when shooting at regular distances. The Tokina was slow but accurate. Sony was the best and the Sigma was good other than the occasional hunting when it missed focus.
Great review! You're becoming quickly one of the best lens reviewers on the web, if you ask me 👍 Personally I think I'll opt for the Sigma since I'm a bokeh fanatic and definitively prefer the bokeh of the Sigma lens over the Sony - not only the bokeh balls, but the overall "look" from what I've seen so far. I'm also a bit disappointed by the corner sharpness of the Sony lens. Now I'm curious if my decision is going to stay this way that once I receive my pre-ordered Sigma macro lens... 😅
Stefan, you're way too kind my friend, but thank you! It's a tough call between the two. The Sigma is definitely a great option and not everyone will go for the Sony. It all depends on what you look for in a lens I guess.
@@stefan_becker Haha cool, i'm about to trade in my 70-200 f4 (don't use it much anymore + the reach is not enough for my anyways) and also the 85 f1.8 (can just use the 105mm 2.8 sigma to do the portraits) for the sigma
Surprised about the "fringing" with the Tokina...mine doesn't. Yes, the AF is crap, but when you look at value for money you get a really sharp (again, mine is...) 100mm f2.8, capable of 1:1 and beautiful bokeh.
Many compliments for test! also, sigma 105 is sharper of sony 90? while af is less reactive with sigma? thanks and saluti dall italia! ps i have sony a7 3 too!
I have the sony and the old sigma (via adaptor) with MF & aperture dial (460gms). I use them on the sony a7r4. The sony in India one can find new for under 750$. I got mine slightly used for 525$. Older lenses one can always find a discount. Image quality on both lenses on r4 is very sharp - lots of detail & AF on R4 has improved as has ibis. From other reviews the MF on the sony works better than the new sigma - something that is important when doing macro composition. I travel with the sony a lot & OSS works better with the ibis. So the lightness factor is important too - main reasoons that I have not updated the old sigma or the sony. Your review has confirmed my own assessment. Thanks
Nice balanced review. I'm currently trying (really really trying) to decide between the Sony and the Sigma. I'm currently favouring the Sony as I have an a6400 without ISS as well as an a7ii with.
On your sharpness test you don’t mention the aperture and it would be nice to have the test done at different apertures as it’s common for sharpness to change at different apertures
Very nice review 👏👏❤ I just have a question , if we choose the right focus mode in the sigma from the focus limiter switch , so the problem of focus hunting in low light situation is solved , isn't it ??
Thanks, glad you liked it! The focus limiter switch helps to stop they lens from racking all the way through the focus range, yes, but it will still occasionally hunt in low light. Most people will us MF when shooting macro shots anyway, so this might not be such a big deal. I hope this helps!
10:40 OSS on Sony could be debated as a negative. When on tripod you have to disable it and now you have a glass inside of your lens with no tension on. Try do macro stacking then. Also, under other circumstances, having OSS on macro could shift focal place too much. It's a positive thing when not shooting macro with the lens, but this is the job you buy it for. AF performance is also kind of irrelevant shooting macro, but when not shooting macro (as you show us) it works great.. AF in macro is kind of stupid, 9 of 10 times I'll disable AF and either use my body to focus or some other strategy. Looking at all the specs I would say Sigma win hands down. I guess I'll be buying this lens next time. Thanks
For me the sharpness is the priority, because I use macro lenses just for macro not portraits, so the manual focus is what I use. But for a portrait lens, yes the autofocus is very important.
I have a Sigma 105 with A7S3. The quality of image is really good. But the AF of Sigma is so so so so slow for macro! And it make so many noise! Finally i will take SONY 90mm f/2.8
Nice review. I picked the sigma completely due price (second hand). Personally the very best af is always nice but think it's not completely necessary in a macro. Have a good weekend 👍
Ita a very good comparison mate.., for the macro lens it just not only for macro and can be use for other things like potrait or even architecture, etc. But the problem is Can anyone give me a suggest between the Sony and the sigma..., I have the sigma 85mm so that i don't need the function from the macro lens to take potraits.. For the body is using a7iii with IBIS in the body.., so i dont think i need that much from the OSS of the sony lens.., and i prefer the sharpest of the sigma.., but i think there are much considering the power from sony in the AF, switch easily the AF by just push or pull the focus ring, and the OSS for the video..., I know from my opinion its like more good for me to take the sigma but i'm still confused because there are no much second used sigma lens in the market that i can buy from...😂😂
Only just switched from Nikon to Sony and trying to decide between the Sigma and Sony is damn hard. Doesn't help that the Sigma isn't actually retailing yet, but with the £100 cashback on Sony gear atm there isn't allot pricewise between these two lenses. The Sony atm is just about winning in my mind. Oh bloody decisions!!!
It's a really tough call! Both lenses are great but the one you choose will ultimately depend on what you look for in a lens and which features you think will benefit you more (weather sealing vs optical stabilisation for example). Good luck with the decision making - hopefully this video helped!
Very nice review and comparision of these 3 lenses from a non-macro use point of view. What about considering their performance for macro shooting? (I managed to notice a few seconds of the footage on this though.) E.g., AF performance is hardly relevant, while in fact MF precision is. I heard that the Sony lens has a better MF, has not it? OSS can be an advantage, although serious macro is rarely made without a tripod, is it? Edge to edge sharpness wide open is again hardly relevant for macro shooting, as shallow DoF demands for as large f stop as possible without diffraction. However, sharpness and CA at f5.6-16 aperture range is very much relevant. Considering all above and ignoring the significant price difference for time being, how does Sigma compares to Sony?
Thanks for the feedback! Ultimately, I'm a portrait photographer and not a macro photographer so, I'm probably not qualified to speak on behalf of macro photographers. However, these focal lengths really lend themselves to portrait photography, and the benefit of being able to shoot super close up is a great benefit, which is why I wanted to make the video. I hope the video was useful nonetheless and the evidence I provided will help you to come to your own conclusion. 😁
Nice review! Just my two cents, but I would have loved to see the autofocus for what the lens will actually be used for, which is macro. Testing AF for portraits seemed like kind of a useless test.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm a portrait photographer and so I was reviewing these lenses from the perspective of a portrait photographer, because actually any of these focal lengths make for really nice portrait glass - with the added bonus of being able to shoot macro. I don't think the AF test at a normal distance is useless, it still demonstrates the lenses speed and accuracy, but I take your point about maybe next time including some footage of them focusing up close.
@@TomCalton i'd like to buy the tokina for macro photography and portraits,i don't want to buy the 90mm, i need the 100mm focal lenght,is the af good enough for static portraits?
i guess it depends on the use case, if strictly for macro...i would argue that the Sigma is a better lens (a not-so-stellar AF is not really that much of a big deal for a discerning macro photography enjoyer)...for a more all-around-outside-of-macro where AF speed is more important...maybe the Sony...but the OOF fringing on the Sony is much worse and if i wanted something in the 100-ish range that's for more general use i'll opt for something else anyway.
Nice video, but I think the comparison was for the portrait side of the lenses which isn't why you would buy a macro lens. I'm aware that you can use them for portraits just fine, but obviously the best use for a macro lens is macro. I think if you'd judge them by their capabilities as macro lenses, the sigma is a clear winner.
The Voigtlander manual focus 110 f2.5 macro embarrasses all 3. And if 1 to 1 magnification ratio is not so important the 65mm f2.0 macro apolanthar is the sharpest lens for mirrorless systems (yes canon and Nikon lenses included)
Hello! You should have focused more on macro shooting; after all, that's why we buy these lenses in the first place. You only show one example and, presumably, at 2.8! Who shoots macro at 2.8? And in the example, it is the Tokina that gives a better image, the other two look blurred.
Connor Mcghie Hi Connor, Sony have been discounting heavily in the past few days so there may still be an opportunity to pick up a bargain online. I got my deal at Park Cameras.
As much as I love Tom's videos, it shows he may not really be a macro photographer. AF should never be a deciding factor for macro, since most of the time manual is required to select and pinpoint magnified shots. Level of magnification, close focusing sharpness, fine manual focusing usability, OOF bokeh in close scenarios for nature and product macro are far more important
I do NOT want a macro lens with autufocus, as an experienced macro photographer I know it is much easier to use a manual focusing macro lens, it will also be much more rugged for many hours of work out in th wild !
That's fair enough. Though obviously you could just switch any of these lenses over to MF and never use the AF at all. For me personally, having the option of AF is great as it means that you can use the lens for other things (like portraiture), which makes the lens a far more versatile tool. But each to their own!
First off, you forgot to give the SONY a RED box for PRICE!( most expensive of the three) by at least $300.00 dollars U.S.In fact I think you should give TWO RED boxes because of that fact.Sharpness, Bokeh , lack of color fringing and VALUE are KING for me.That is why I own SIGMA lenses over SONY. The ONLY SONY that I love and own is the SONY 200-600 mm G lens That lens is a FANTASTIC VALUE, EXCEPT for its wide aperture of 6.3 @ 600 mm.
I can confirm that EyeAF worked well with all three lenses. I'll be sure to add this in to future tests if you would like to see it as a regular thing? Thanks for your feedback 👍
I was surprised at your decision, when you seemed to forget that this is a 1:1 Macro lens, and as such, the AF would not be used in most conditions. I use the older sigma and it produces amazing results, and all the other reveiws that I have seen take it's macro performance into account. You missed one there Tom. Other than that, a very fair comparison. so 6/10
Nice channel, good videos, good quality, good filming, good editing, good testing and some comedy thrown in.. all the factors needed for good TH-cam content :)
Donald, you are way too kind! But thank you for your comment, really appreciate it!
Best review on TH-cam so far … precisely and straight to the point … I don’t miss examples of macro shots like others do … it’s more interesting what these lenses offer on top and if you can use them for other purposes … well done … love your humor!
Thank you, you're too kind! Glad you enjoyed the video 😊
Good work, I believe you should compare sharpness at f8 and f11, as product photographers do not intend to shoot wide open
Thanks. Though broadly speaking, image quality at f/8 and f/11 is usually pretty good on most lenses as this is the "sweet spot". The challenge is making a lens that performs well wide open. If it can do that, then it's almost certainly going to be good at narrower f-stops. Plus, I'm a portrait photographer so I'm testing these lenses on how good they are at taking portraits above all else.
I hope you found the video useful anyway! Thanks for watching 👍
@@TomCalton I got your point, however, since Tokina is significantly cheaper than the other two competitors, it would be nice to know the sharpness quality at f8 or f11 for such a particular work.
Generally speaking, I believe Tokina makes relatively good lenses. When testing the 85mm f1.8 Tokina, I found it has a good image quality as the Sony.
Here is my video if you’re interested th-cam.com/video/LznQUKMihXk/w-d-xo.html
You did a good job. The only complains I‘ve got is the image test. Usually you don‘t use Macro Lenses at f 2.8 because of the shallow deph of field. You use them betreen f 5.6 and f 11. So I would like to know the image quality at f 8 or so.
You're totally right, however, I was reviewing them from a portrait photographers perspective.
Tried sigma 105 dg dn with a6600, compared to sony FE 90mm and tiny laowa 65mm, at F8 sigma had the worst image quality, while at F4 had the best, sold sigma because F4 is often too shallow for macro, mostly using F/5.6-8 and as a portrait lens sigma 56mm 1.4 and sony 85mm 1.8 felt much better option with much more reliable AF.
finally a good review and comparison on those lenses. Thanks
You're very welcome! Thanks for watching 👍
Thanks for the comparison, I think I will go for the sigma as I do product videos with good lighting and I just want to have the sharper image.
Thanks for watching! Glad it helped ☺️
I felt compelled to subscribe based off your closing shot.
And well informed opinion.
I like how my "well informed opinion" is secondary. Just how it should be.😉 Welcome aboard sir!
I would go for the Tokina if all was required was a general lens. Shoot ALOT of small stuff for Ebay for example. Save the money. Tougher choice on the top end. Have the Sony 50mm macro and have zero complaints.
Thanks for the comment. I agree - if you're looking for a cheap macro then the Tokina is an OK option, if you can put up with the image quality and slow/noisy AF. Although my pick would be the Sony, the Sigma is still a great option, so you can't go wrong really.
Just picked up the Sigma, hoping to test it out this weekend. :)
Nice! Hope you enjoy it!
will you review the new tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro?
2023 update: I chose the Sigma over the Sony. The Sony is an unchanged lens since 2015 when it was first released. I wont pay a premium price for a now eight -year old optical design, eight-year old focus motor tech in 2023.. The Sony lacks the de-clickable aperture ring of the Sigma which I love. And the Sigma has tested sharper than the Sony in all the MTF-standard sharpness tests. I use the focus limiting switch and have absolutely no focus issues with the Sigma in lower light. Part of your focus issues may be because you are using an older 2020 Sony body. I even have insect subject-recognition on AI autofocus now in 2023. And the rectangular bokeh balls of the Sony are just unattractive to me. And the Sigma is rated by top testers as a better dual macro/portrait lens over the Sony 90mm macro lens. . Nothing really bad about the venerable Sony 90mm macro, just time and tech have moved on. Sony is working on an optically better, and faster focusing new 70mm f2.8 macro lens. FYI I have owned Sony A6500, A7RII, A7RIII, A7III, A9 , A7RIV and currently I own A7RV, A1, A7SIII and the Sigma works great with all three of these. Cheers and best to you in 2023. .
But you talk about the new sigma Macro 105MM Art version… right?
@@giancarloarrobarodriguez5291 yes
No one cares
@@matthewgregory2106 maybe not you, but others around the world do care. Cheers
@@6gwilliams I concur. We do care!
agreed, the quality of your channel is amazing. Would like a little more side by side on the image quality and also would like to see the focus breathing of the lenses. But the quality of your channel is comparable with much bigger channels, a matter of time my friend...
Thanks Steven! Appreciate you taking the time to comment!
My reviews have evolved dramatically since I released this video and you'll be happy to hear that I now include a bunch of other tests within my reviews (including focus breathing). I also try to include a lot more photos with comparisons where applicable. Thanks again for the feedback ☺️
Coming back to this great comparison as I've sold my old A-mount macro and looking into a replacement.
Most reviews focus only on image quality and declare the Sigma the (clear) winner. When I do a personal comparison and, like you, add in handling (OSS, AF/MF clutch, AF performance) the Sony is actually way ahead of the Sigma overall for my needs - especially now that here in the UK the price difference has closed a lot.
Hope you found the video useful! The Sigma is still very good, but yeah, I definitely prefer the Sony when it comes to handling. It's a really nice lens!
What about the Laowa 100mm macro? I’m deciding between the Laowa, Sigma & Sony. Never even knew about the Tokina!
The Laowa 100mm is MF only and is 2:1 macro, not 1:1, so it didn't really fit in to this group. But maybe it's something we can look at separately in a future video? 😊
Tom Calton good point. For me AF isn’t necessary for macro, neither is 2:1. It’s the price that makes it a contender. Hard to justify buying a macro when it’s only used occasionally so I’m considering cheaping out
It used to be that with a macro lens, corner to corner sharpness was a must - after all you were supposed to do copy work with it. However, these days how many people document stamps and coins with these lenses? So paying weight and size for this may not be a great design decision. On the other hand, the Sigma, being newer, must have some unique selling point and this is a good valid place to shine.
So the new sigma 105 for e mount replaces the 105 for full frame?
Friends us the sigma (old) but on full frame. So don't I want a 70mm macro lens to be equivalent on my 6300? What options are there for that? Presumably going to be smaller, lighter, cheaper?
Thanx really, I know is not the rheme but i have a sony 18-105 f4, what do you think about the nisi close up lens?
Nice review Tom! Well done. My two cents here. I have the Sony 90mm and love it for the most part. The one thing I don’t like about it though is the harsh structure of out of focus highlights. Sometimes out of focus bokeh balls have an ugly inner structure onion ring look which really bothers me in some situations. Overall though the bokeh is generally nice and smooth especially for portraits. I do also wish it were 100mm or 105mm. Hoping there may be a something like a Sony GM 105mm f/2 macro released in the future.
Excellent comparison: very useful info, and well presented.
I was considering getting the sigma because 105mm over the 90mm because it allows you to get a bit closer when shooting tiny subjects without being all over it but the OSS on the 90mm makes it much easier and the AF/MF switch on the focus ring makes it much easier to shoot. I was able to get 90mm for $800 from the greentoe app new so I didnt have to pay more to get it. Anyway I loved your video, and thank you for making my choices easier.
Thanks for your comment - glad you found the video useful! I hope you enjoy your new Sony lens 👍
@@TomCalton much thank you my man
It kind of depends what you need a macro lens for. The Sony is a great all-around lens with OSS and 1:1 macro capability; it can easily be used for portraits, bugs in the field, general telephoto, etc. The Sigma on the other hand is a standout for copy work / film negative scanning, where you use manual focus only and need the absolute best possible sharpness and image quality across the frame. Most people don't need a copy lens, but if you do, the Sigma beats the Sony.
You gained a sub my friend. Impressive review.
Thank you and welcome aboard! 🤜💥🤛
With the image being a little sharper on the Sigma, do you think it would do a better job for film scanning? That's going to be my primary use at first for it. Once I've scanned my old film, it would be for both macro and portrait and other photos.
Thanks, I have the Sigma and miss image stabilization, and I get annoyed with the focus hunting in low light even after setting the limiting switch. I am thinking about getting the Sony and this helped a lot. Your review is not only informative, it is entertaining.
Hi there, really appreciated your comparisons. I could not find very useful information regarding Sony 90 autofocus while shooting fast movement subjects, such as a dog running or some sport action. I'd be interested in a (reasonably) fast prime telephoto lens for aps-c (a6500). The sony fe 85 1.8 would be a great choice for its fast autofocus, but i'd love to get the 90 2.8 for its plus of being a (very good) macro lens as well. But can it be usable to get decent focused pictures shot at fast shutter speed? (For outdoors shots). I'm currently using sigma 18-35 with MC-11 adaptor, and i missed so many shots because of its not reliable autofocus even in good light condition...i don't think it can be way worse than my lens :D
Thank you!
Great video, Tom! Will you test each of them for decentering problem? My previous 2 Sony lens had that issue.
Hey, thanks for watching! Unfortunately I won't be testing these lenses again, unless something else comes out that needs to be tested in the range. Sorry!
@@TomCalton
I already bought the Sigma lens. It's perfect, well centered and everything you mentioned. Impressive!
Is there any news about new version of macro lens from Sony ?
Tom, Ive been reading lots of reviews of this lens. I will be using this lens strictly for close up insect macro. So naturally many of the features discussed don't matter to me. I generally shoot in manual and move the camera back and forth to fine tune focus depth. I also NEVER shoot at F/2.8. Min is F/8 for more DOF. Everyone compares the sharpness to the Sony at F/2.8. I need to know how it compares at F/8. Maybe the Sony surpasses it? Did you do any sharpness comparisons at higher apertures? btw- keep up the great work on your videos.
Thanks for your comment and watching the video. Unfortunately I didn't test these lenses at anything other than f/2.8 as I was conducting this test as a portrait photographer rather than a macro photographer, as these focal lengths are actually really nice for portraits and the macro feature is a handy bonus in some situations.
I may be wrong (I'm sure someone will correct me if I am) but at f/8, I doubt there will be much between these lenses. Typically, as you close down the aperture the image quality will increase (better sharpness, less vignetting, etc etc) so testing lenses wide open is usually the done thing because this is where the lens will be at it's "weakest". And, if it can deliver good results wide open, then it's fairly safe to say that as you close the aperture down, the results will only get better towards the middle of the aperture range (between f/8 and f/11 is usually the sweet spot where performance is best).
I hope this helps and thanks again for checking out my video 👍
That's a coincidence, just bought slightly used Sony 90mm Macro G OSS this afternoon, then saw your comparison tonight! I knew about the Sigma which would have cost me slightly more, but no steady-shot and heavier. Think I made the right decision. Thanks for your humour and good quality reviews. Personally I would prefer to see actual photos taken with the cameras. ;-)
Thanks for your feedback Jack - glad you liked the video and found it helpful 🙌
Where'd you find the used lens? If the Sony was around the same price as the Sigma, I would strongly consider it since it has OSS plus that clutch system is just a cut above.
@@groundcontrol6876 I bought a few Sony lenses on eBay. Have all turned out well except one which did not include the box. Between 50% and 70% of new price. No more than 2 years old, hardly used.
I wish there had been a bit better look at the actual macro things, like focus breathing and IQ when at the minimum focusing distance. Breathing especially, as it can cause issues when doing focus stacking to compensate for the razor-thin DoF.
Very cool Video!! Thanks for the very good comparison
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching 👍
Top reviewer!! Thanks for the clear review!
My pleasure - thanks for watching!
Very nice video! Starting to like your humour in between XD. Keep bringing up this content!
Thanks man - glad I'm starting to grow on you 😉
Watched this to see if switching from my Sony to the Sigma would be worthwhile. Looks like I'm safe sticking to my Sony. Macro focusing on the Sony is less than stellar, but if the Sigma doesn't improve on that, no point switching. Shame, as this is a comparison of macro lenses, that you did no comparisons of that usage.
Thanks for your feedback. I did mention performance whilst shooting using macro at 07:37. To be honest, the performance was much the same as when shooting at regular distances. The Tokina was slow but accurate. Sony was the best and the Sigma was good other than the occasional hunting when it missed focus.
Great review! You're becoming quickly one of the best lens reviewers on the web, if you ask me 👍 Personally I think I'll opt for the Sigma since I'm a bokeh fanatic and definitively prefer the bokeh of the Sigma lens over the Sony - not only the bokeh balls, but the overall "look" from what I've seen so far. I'm also a bit disappointed by the corner sharpness of the Sony lens. Now I'm curious if my decision is going to stay this way that once I receive my pre-ordered Sigma macro lens... 😅
Stefan, you're way too kind my friend, but thank you!
It's a tough call between the two. The Sigma is definitely a great option and not everyone will go for the Sony. It all depends on what you look for in a lens I guess.
How has it been? 👀
@@thatsreallyamoon I keep the Sigma and I'm currently about to sell the Sony 90mm.
@@stefan_becker Haha cool, i'm about to trade in my 70-200 f4 (don't use it much anymore + the reach is not enough for my anyways) and also the 85 f1.8 (can just use the 105mm 2.8 sigma to do the portraits) for the sigma
Surprised about the "fringing" with the Tokina...mine doesn't. Yes, the AF is crap, but when you look at value for money you get a really sharp (again, mine is...) 100mm f2.8, capable of 1:1 and beautiful bokeh.
Many compliments for test! also, sigma 105 is sharper of sony 90? while af is less reactive with sigma? thanks and saluti dall italia!
ps i have sony a7 3 too!
Thanks! And yes, that's absolutely correct. 😁 Thanks for watching!
Awesome informative review my dude!
Thanks Alan, glad you enjoyed it bud 👍
I have the sony and the old sigma (via adaptor) with MF & aperture dial (460gms). I use them on the sony a7r4. The sony in India one can find new for under 750$. I got mine slightly used for 525$. Older lenses one can always find a discount. Image quality on both lenses on r4 is very sharp - lots of detail & AF on R4 has improved as has ibis. From other reviews the MF on the sony works better than the new sigma - something that is important when doing macro composition. I travel with the sony a lot & OSS works better with the ibis. So the lightness factor is important too - main reasoons that I have not updated the old sigma or the sony. Your review has confirmed my own assessment. Thanks
Hey Giti - thanks for sharing! Very interesting! Glad you liked the video 😊
@@TomCalton very accurate video - helps one understand the histoy of lens design too!
Nice balanced review. I'm currently trying (really really trying) to decide between the Sony and the Sigma. I'm currently favouring the Sony as I have an a6400 without ISS as well as an a7ii with.
You seem canny 🙂 subbed, liking how chill this channel is
Thanks brother - welcome aboard! 🤜🤛
On your sharpness test you don’t mention the aperture and it would be nice to have the test done at different apertures as it’s common for sharpness to change at different apertures
Very nice review 👏👏❤
I just have a question , if we choose the right focus mode in the sigma from the focus limiter switch , so the problem of focus hunting in low light situation is solved , isn't it ??
Thanks, glad you liked it! The focus limiter switch helps to stop they lens from racking all the way through the focus range, yes, but it will still occasionally hunt in low light. Most people will us MF when shooting macro shots anyway, so this might not be such a big deal. I hope this helps!
Thank's tom 🌹🌹
10:40 OSS on Sony could be debated as a negative. When on tripod you have to disable it and now you have a glass inside of your lens with no tension on. Try do macro stacking then. Also, under other circumstances, having OSS on macro could shift focal place too much. It's a positive thing when not shooting macro with the lens, but this is the job you buy it for. AF performance is also kind of irrelevant shooting macro, but when not shooting macro (as you show us) it works great.. AF in macro is kind of stupid, 9 of 10 times I'll disable AF and either use my body to focus or some other strategy. Looking at all the specs I would say Sigma win hands down. I guess I'll be buying this lens next time. Thanks
For me the sharpness is the priority, because I use macro lenses just for macro not portraits, so the manual focus is what I use. But for a portrait lens, yes the autofocus is very important.
I have a Sigma 105 with A7S3. The quality of image is really good. But the AF of Sigma is so so so so slow for macro! And it make so many noise!
Finally i will take SONY 90mm f/2.8
Yeah, you're really not wrong there! Though, when shooting in macro I tend to favour MF anyway, so the slow AF doesn't bother me too much.
I had to go wit the sony for my a7riv im on antirejection pills and makes me very shakey so oss was a must
I really wasn't expecting the accuracy of the description of the tokina lens focusing😂
I enjoyed this so much, thanks
You're welcome! Thanks for watching 👍
Question what makes you use picture profile 8? It's always hard for me to find reasons to use anything other than off
I needed a really good macro lens and so I have now: Nikon Z mc 105 S (and a Nikon Z7 II, it's clear...).
Great review. Thanks !!
You're more than welcome!
@@TomCalton Can you please make a comparison video on Sony A9, A7 III and A7R IV ?
No problem. Are you going to buy them all for me to test? 😉
@@TomCalton After Checking your video, one I will buy for sure.
Awesome comparison!
Glad you think so! Thanks for watching!
can you publish full size jpegs please?
Great comparison. Much appreciated.
Thank you, glad you liked it! Thanks for watching 👍
thanks for explanation.I will order Tokina firin.Greetings from Turkey.
Thanks for watching! Enjoy the new lens!
You have another subscriber, great video 🤙
Thanks! Welcome aboard 🤜🤛
Nice video Tom!
Thanks! 👍
Excellent review! +Sub
Thanks Alex! Welcome aboard 🤜🤛
Very good video! saved me money!
Thank you!
Glad it helped! Thanks for watching 👍🏻
Great comparison - I've shared it in a sony professional group as macro comes up often :)
Hey Greg. Very much appreciated, thank you mate! 🤜🤛
Nice review. I picked the sigma completely due price (second hand). Personally the very best af is always nice but think it's not completely necessary in a macro. Have a good weekend 👍
Ita a very good comparison mate.., for the macro lens it just not only for macro and can be use for other things like potrait or even architecture, etc.
But the problem is Can anyone give me a suggest between the Sony and the sigma..., I have the sigma 85mm so that i don't need the function from the macro lens to take potraits..
For the body is using a7iii with IBIS in the body.., so i dont think i need that much from the OSS of the sony lens.., and i prefer the sharpest of the sigma.., but i think there are much considering the power from sony in the AF, switch easily the AF by just push or pull the focus ring, and the OSS for the video...,
I know from my opinion its like more good for me to take the sigma but i'm still confused because there are no much second used sigma lens in the market that i can buy from...😂😂
Only just switched from Nikon to Sony and trying to decide between the Sigma and Sony is damn hard. Doesn't help that the Sigma isn't actually retailing yet, but with the £100 cashback on Sony gear atm there isn't allot pricewise between these two lenses. The Sony atm is just about winning in my mind. Oh bloody decisions!!!
It's a really tough call! Both lenses are great but the one you choose will ultimately depend on what you look for in a lens and which features you think will benefit you more (weather sealing vs optical stabilisation for example). Good luck with the decision making - hopefully this video helped!
Very nice review and comparision of these 3 lenses from a non-macro use point of view. What about considering their performance for macro shooting? (I managed to notice a few seconds of the footage on this though.)
E.g., AF performance is hardly relevant, while in fact MF precision is. I heard that the Sony lens has a better MF, has not it?
OSS can be an advantage, although serious macro is rarely made without a tripod, is it?
Edge to edge sharpness wide open is again hardly relevant for macro shooting, as shallow DoF demands for as large f stop as possible without diffraction. However, sharpness and CA at f5.6-16 aperture range is very much relevant.
Considering all above and ignoring the significant price difference for time being, how does Sigma compares to Sony?
Thanks for the feedback! Ultimately, I'm a portrait photographer and not a macro photographer so, I'm probably not qualified to speak on behalf of macro photographers. However, these focal lengths really lend themselves to portrait photography, and the benefit of being able to shoot super close up is a great benefit, which is why I wanted to make the video. I hope the video was useful nonetheless and the evidence I provided will help you to come to your own conclusion. 😁
Nice review! Just my two cents, but I would have loved to see the autofocus for what the lens will actually be used for, which is macro. Testing AF for portraits seemed like kind of a useless test.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm a portrait photographer and so I was reviewing these lenses from the perspective of a portrait photographer, because actually any of these focal lengths make for really nice portrait glass - with the added bonus of being able to shoot macro. I don't think the AF test at a normal distance is useless, it still demonstrates the lenses speed and accuracy, but I take your point about maybe next time including some footage of them focusing up close.
@@TomCalton i'd like to buy the tokina for macro photography and portraits,i don't want to buy the 90mm, i need the 100mm focal lenght,is the af good enough for static portraits?
Lol beating a squirrel to death 🤣
I should add that no squirrels were hurt in the making of this video...
Hey Tom that's a super great video you made here. Greetings.
Thank Martin, appreciate it! 👍
i guess it depends on the use case, if strictly for macro...i would argue that the Sigma is a better lens (a not-so-stellar AF is not really that much of a big deal for a discerning macro photography enjoyer)...for a more all-around-outside-of-macro where AF speed is more important...maybe the Sony...but the OOF fringing on the Sony is much worse and if i wanted something in the 100-ish range that's for more general use i'll opt for something else anyway.
9:27 made my day. Thanks for the video.
Good Work. Subscribed
Thanks for the sub!
“Beating a squirrel to death” 😆🤣🤣🤣
Tokina is using old school AF motor. Brings me back to old kit lenses and to analogue cameras moving film forward
Nice video, but I think the comparison was for the portrait side of the lenses which isn't why you would buy a macro lens. I'm aware that you can use them for portraits just fine, but obviously the best use for a macro lens is macro. I think if you'd judge them by their capabilities as macro lenses, the sigma is a clear winner.
You are completely right, this video was for the benefit of portrait photographers. As is my entire channel.
The Voigtlander manual focus 110 f2.5 macro embarrasses all 3. And if 1 to 1 magnification ratio is not so important the 65mm f2.0 macro apolanthar is the sharpest lens for mirrorless systems (yes canon and Nikon lenses included)
Damn, you didn’t make it easier to choose the lens... 😂 Anyway, it is a great video.
Haha! Sorry Krzysztof! 😅 It was a very tight call to be fair! Glad you enjoyed the video - thanks for watching 👍
Thank you
You're more than welcome 🤘
Hello! You should have focused more on macro shooting; after all, that's why we buy these lenses in the first place. You only show one example and, presumably, at 2.8! Who shoots macro at 2.8? And in the example, it is the Tokina that gives a better image, the other two look blurred.
Well done...thank you...
My pleasure! Thanks for watching 👍
Nice channel, congrats!
Thanks! 👍
Very good!
Thanks Tom, i have beeng trying to sellect btween those two for a while, did help to choose ..Thanks..
You're welcome, glad you found it useful! Thanks for watching 👍
Awesome comparison! Funny too. Why don’t you have more subs?!?
Haha! Thanks, glad you liked the video! I'm relatively new to TH-cam (only started in April) so all in good time my friend 🤞
Nice comparison
Thanks! 👍
@@TomCalton Best portrait lens 35/85 for wedding
Is that a question? As in, which would I pick? If so, the answer is both. That's what I use religiously at weddings.
@@TomCalton yes it's the question
Thanks for clarifying. Hope my answer helps ☺️
Enjoyed the review. I see today that the Sony price has dropped to match the Sigma so I guess I know where my money is going!
Thanks for watching! Yeah, if you can get the Sony for cheaper than the price quoted in this video, it's a no brainer for sure! Hope you enjoy it 👍
Hey John, where have you seen the price drop? can you send me a link?
Connor Mcghie Hi Connor, Sony have been discounting heavily in the past few days so there may still be an opportunity to pick up a bargain online. I got my deal at Park Cameras.
Best reviewer
Thank you!
Dankeschön!
Bitte! 👍
I pay little more for optical steady shot. That is convenient.
Good to know my Sony Macro is the best - Reassuring - H
It's a great lens 👍
As much as I love Tom's videos, it shows he may not really be a macro photographer. AF should never be a deciding factor for macro, since most of the time manual is required to select and pinpoint magnified shots. Level of magnification, close focusing sharpness, fine manual focusing usability, OOF bokeh in close scenarios for nature and product macro are far more important
Unfortunately, there is no video anywhere that compares the Sony + OOS with Sigma + IBIS.
I do NOT want a macro lens with autufocus, as an experienced macro photographer I know it is much easier to use a manual focusing macro lens, it will also be much more rugged for many hours of work out in th wild !
That's fair enough. Though obviously you could just switch any of these lenses over to MF and never use the AF at all. For me personally, having the option of AF is great as it means that you can use the lens for other things (like portraiture), which makes the lens a far more versatile tool. But each to their own!
No LoCA comparison?
It's not something we test for currently, but if enough people request to see it then we can add it in to future videos.
First off, you forgot to give the SONY a RED box for PRICE!( most expensive of the three) by at least $300.00 dollars U.S.In fact I think you should give TWO RED boxes because of that fact.Sharpness, Bokeh , lack of color fringing and VALUE are KING for me.That is why I own SIGMA lenses over SONY. The ONLY SONY that I love and own is the SONY 200-600 mm G lens That lens is a FANTASTIC VALUE, EXCEPT for its wide aperture of 6.3 @ 600 mm.
Great comparison gonna stick with my Sony its an incredible all rounder 😁
My pleasure! Great choice - the Sony is a brilliant lens.
Hé 😏 merci mon ami !
Aucun problème mec 🤘
Why no eye af test? 🙁.
I can confirm that EyeAF worked well with all three lenses. I'll be sure to add this in to future tests if you would like to see it as a regular thing? Thanks for your feedback 👍
@@TomCalton Thanks for your reply, Indeed, many many people buy this lens for portraiture at studio for max sharpness, even on location too. Regards.
I was surprised at your decision, when you seemed to forget that this is a 1:1 Macro lens, and as such, the AF would not be used in most conditions. I use the older sigma and it produces amazing results, and all the other reveiws that I have seen take it's macro performance into account. You missed one there Tom. Other than that, a very fair comparison. so 6/10
Beating squirrel 🤣🤣
Nikon Z user looking at this/me
😵💫😓
😂
I have dis lens sony 2.8 mm 90 mm beautifall!!
It's a brilliant lens! Nice choice 👌