Tokina 100mm Macro vs Sigma 70mm Macro Art

addy landzaat wrote: You went quickly from "I want a macro lens on a budget" to an almost €1500 lens enjoy your renewed hobby

Ya that's the kind of guy I am. I start small and things just grow. It drives may Gal nuts lol. Photographing corals was my main intent but being out in the woods yesterday with my camera and dogs made me realize how much I miss photography. Now that I'm retired I think I'll enjoy it even more. It has been a part of my life for a long time and I'm not really sure why I got out years ago. My grandfather used to shoot portraits in black and white and add touches of color using pastels which goes back to before I was born so I've almost alway been around it. Oh the macro lens is coming also. I will use it more than any once the weather breaks. I love crawling around shooting bugs and little creatures. Nothing more fun than watching a wasp use its legs to wipe dew drops from its body and eys so it can start flying for the day. Then 2 days later the poison ivy I was crawling in shows up on my stomach. Yep fun times indeed

nandbytes wrote: SNIP There is also a tamron 50-400mm which is more expensive and new, which means its harder to find in the used market.

I ended up ordering the Tamron 50-400. I think the range will suit my shooting style the best which is mostly outdoors nature shooting and landscapes. I think it will be a good day to day carry lens for me. I rarely shoot wide angle.

David_S wrote: nandbytes wrote: David_S wrote: I went with the Sigma. Everything is on the truck for delivery today I'm also going to add a 70-300g. The kit comes with a 28-70 lens so I should have good enough coverage my purposes which are recreational shooting. Think you will be better off with tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 (once again make sure you get the e-mount version). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_220CeHFDU Thanks for the heads up. Mint used Sony $700 or new Tamron for $500 decisions decisions. I had an old Tamron zoom I think 150-500 years ago and the zoom creep was terrible to the point of being annoying as it would fully extend when I was walking around. Maybe the 70-300 won't be as bad because it smaller and lighter? If it had a zoom lock it would be a no brainer.

Mine doesn't creep. I like it a lot. It is much better than the A-mount 70-300 G SSM II.

XKAES wrote: nandbytes wrote: OP wants AF for portraits. Recent macro lenses actually make for excellent portrait and also landscape lenses. Right! Portraits of fish in his aquarium.

He doesn't mention, though it's not too farfetched to imagine he meant people and it's also not too farfetched to say you are commenting without reading the whole thread/conversation.

nandbytes wrote: OP wants AF for portraits. Recent macro lenses actually make for excellent portrait and also landscape lenses.

Right! Portraits of fish in his aquarium.

nandbytes wrote: SNIP There is also a Sigma 100-400mm that might fit within your budget and give you that bit of extra reach at the long end.

Thank you very much. Great information. I will look into the sigma 100-400 as well. I tend to use the longer end of telezooms when I'm out in the woods so it may be worth it for the extra reach as well as some functions it provides that the Tamron doesn't.

nandbytes wrote: David_S wrote: I went with the Sigma. Everything is on the truck for delivery today I'm also going to add a 70-300g. The kit comes with a 28-70 lens so I should have good enough coverage my purposes which are recreational shooting. Think you will be better off with tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 (once again make sure you get the e-mount version). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_220CeHFDU

Thanks for the heads up. Mint used Sony $700 or new Tamron for $500 decisions decisions. I had an old Tamron zoom I think 150-500 years ago and the zoom creep was terrible to the point of being annoying as it would fully extend when I was walking around. Maybe the 70-300 won't be as bad because it smaller and lighter? If it had a zoom lock it would be a no brainer.