>Subject: Tamron 28-300 and which 105 Micro 2.8? [v04.n345/2] >Message: 2 > >Two info requests. >I recently saw in Outdoor Photographer a short ad concerning the new Tamron >28-300: any direct experiences? >I'm going to buy a 105 micro f 2.8 for macro photos and portrait: anyone >has personal experience with the new Sigma EX vs Nikon? In other words, is >the quality difference worth the price difference? >Thanks for any suggestions. > Sigma 105 macro is my first lens (I started again photography after 12 years). It is excellent. The sharpness will amaze you. If I had to point out the weaknesses: to put the lens in manual focus you have to press the ring -and- switch the camera to MF. It may flare, all macros have a tendency to flare if used as short telephoto. Use the hood. but the sharpness....will spoil you, you will wish all your lenses to be equally sharp. no distortions, no problems at f32 - 22. I tried the nikkor also. In my opinion get the sigma. -------------------------------------------------- Alternative Factor http://www.altfactor.gr
