After a new 100ish Nikon fit Macro

[Hertsman]

My Tamron 90 is ok, but Im seeing some way better stuff, sa Im thinking either the Sig 105 2.8 or the Nikon equivalent....

Ive seen some great images from the Sig, with mental Bokeh, but had a bad experience with an old Sig so a little gun shy...

What do you guys think ?

 

[f/2.8]

I have th Nikon 105vr to be honest not really sure it’s any better than the old Tamron 90mm I also have. With macro lenses it seems there is no such thing as a bad one.

 

[Nod]

Fat wallet - Nikkor 105. Slimmer one - Sigma 105. TBH, unless you really want to change or need VR/OS, I'd keep the Tamron.

 

[StewartR]

My Tamron 90 is ok, but Im seeing some way better stuff, sa Im thinking either the Sig 105 2.8 or the Nikon equivalent....

Care to show some examples? The Sigma and Nikon macro lenses aren't "way better" than the Tamron, if indeed they're any better at all, so unless your lens is broken I'd suggest that the differences you're claiming to see might be down to technique rather than the lens itself.

But I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Show us some pictures to illustrate your point.

 

[Gremlin]

Agree with Stewart, I originally had the sigma 105, only changed to the Nikon because I didn't like the extending barrel
Not sure if the newer versions do that but image wise little difference