Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro

[Tractor Boy]

I have been looking about for a Macro lens and have been considering several options but I just wondered if anyone knows if there are any big differences between the sigma 105 ex and the newer sigma 105 ex dg?

I don't know ikf the DG is worth paying extra for or if, as suggested elsewhere on the net, is just an advertising gimmick to get people to upgrade :shrug:

Also does this lens in general suffer from the sigma quality control issues :shrug:

Thanks

Nick

 

[Tractor Boy]

Anyone :shrug:

 

[fracster]

I have the EX DG mate, but I rarely use it so don`t really feel qualified to offer any advice other than to say that the it works well enough for me.

 

[puddleduck]

DG is just a gimmick, the price went up 20% when DG came out.

I don't ever recall anyone managing to show any benefits from this coating - there is probably some theoretical benefit that fixes a problem with the previous coating that no one ever actually saw..

Go for whatever is cheapest. I've had several DG and non-DG lens, and I'm convinced its just a marketing difference, not an optical difference.

Sigma's best macro lenses are the 70mm and the 150mm. In the 100mm ish range, I'd prefer either a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X or a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 personally...

 

[Barney12]

I cant comment on the differences between EX and EX DG but I have the EX DG and its a cracking lens. I have a number of Sigma lenses (70-200, 28-70, 10-20, 105, 150-500) and all are great and I've never experienced the quality control issues people talk about.

Barney

 

[Tractor Boy]

Thanks you two - I have seen a 105 EX for sale with MPB that is just about within price range. I have looked at the shorter lengths and feel that I will be using it for bugs as well as flora so the extra length is probably needed. I don't seem to be able to find a Tamron or Tokina at the moment that I can afford :bang: