Thanks for another great review - the Sony ended up picking me by being on an incredible Black Friday deal where it was 30% less than the Sigma! Now to find some really small stuff to photograph...
Thanks for the cpmparison video! However I think your rating concerning the performance is just wrong. The Sigma lens is sharper as you mentioned. If you also take a look at the bokeh (at macro and portrait distance) the winner is clearly the Sigma as the bokeh of the Sony can be swirly which I don't like at all. Also the Sony has visible longitudinal chromatic aberrations wjereas tje Sigma has not. I think the Sigma is apochromatic or almost apochromatic. Considering this the performance winner is imho clearly (and by far) the Sigma. I also tested both lenses side by side, kept the Sigma and sold the Sony.
I had to decide between these two and after comparing their features went for the Sony - the AF/MF clutch is underrated and gives you such control over focusing. No searching around with your finger trying to find & flick the AF/MF switch while keeping your subject in view. And as my macro lens also sees a lot of use as portrait/general lens the much better AF is super helpful. Finally as my secondary camera is not stabilised having OSS means I can use this lens on that too.
One area where the Sigma made the difference to me was use of the lens to scan film! In that case, the sharper lens is a must! You want the sharpest results possible and the Sigma doesn't disappoint! I found the results form my scans of 35mm and 120 film were amazing! Another plus was that the Sigma will focus perfectly on the surface of the film. When researching the two, the softer corners on the Sony was a determining factor! The fact that the Sigma lens is way cheaper than the Sony was a bonus! I have also used the lens for regular use and it performed well with sharp images and great color rendition!
I’m just starting in macro. So thanks for your comparison. I absolutely need the stabilization feature. so I am leaning towards SONY. Do you think this lens would work well on a Sony a 6100 camera?
I stick to 90mm (and I have sold my 85mm f/1.8) but during portrait photography, I notice that its autofocus is not as fast as 85mm, but acceptable. I have a question though. Your profile photo looks so nice, I mean the lighting coming from one side. If I were to replicate the method, I am guessing you are using a studio light (not flash) on one side?
90mm Sony here. It resolves high enough so there's no need for higher. The OSS and the mechanical MF in combination makes it unmatched til the present day. For portraits, well I use a portrait lense 🤷🏻♂️. Why should I use a macro lense ?
I own the Sigma for quite some time, now I use it with the A7RV and I notice it hunts like crazy. Today I was photographing a bee and with Insect Eye AF the Sigma found the eye but was still continuesly focusing back and forth while shooting. Which made half the shots blurry. I'm wondering if the Sony also does this
Hi what do you think of the new Sony 70-200 f4 macro lens. I am feeling like it can do two things vs just Macro. I have the Sony A7R5 and I use the Lumix S5ii withe new 100mm Macro lens so have that for Macro. Just feel that 70-200 might be a good lens. What do think 😊
I’m struggling to choose between the Sony 90 2.8 and the Sigma 105 2.8 macro lenses to pair with my Sony A7 IV. My primary use case is for product video and photo close ups, occasionally portrait photography and also video in general. Which one would you guys think would fit better my use? I know neither of the two have the fastest autofocus but I do want o have autofocus so is importan a decent performance for AF. Thanks in advanced
If in-lens stabilization is important, buy the Sony. If not, buy the Sigma. Put the savings from buying the Sigma towards the price of a Sony 85/1.8 for portrait work.
@@DavidTechEs It really depends on how you're going to be doing the shooting. On a video tripod? On a gimbal? Handheld? If it's handheld you may find that no amount of stabilization helps, and that the depth of field you are working with is much too thin to make good video. In this case you might find that taking photos (stacked for DOF) and placing those in your video is better than using video itself.
Nice review. I had them both, had similiar conclusion, but my copies had bigger differences, sigma 105 was a lot sharper than sony 90, while sony had a lot better autufocus, like day and night, sigma was too much front heavy for longer session. Overall experience in macro was a bit frustrating with both of these lenses, wired focus and it's delay lost me a lot of pictures, ended up with manual laowa and sold sony and sigma.
Just a FYI, the manual focus of the Sigma 105 is not electronically compatible with the Sony camera (design manufacturing error). It requires a download from Sigma to work.
Very balanced review & I love your photographs. I have the sony and the older sigma which was made during the transition from slr to dslr. It too has a clutch mechanism like the sony. And is much lighter - abt 450 odd grams. I also have the apo 180mm f5.6 older 1:2 sigma - also 400+ grams. Sony I find the best at all distances but I tend to use the sigma 180 the most for macro work. There is very little to separate the new sigma & the sony - its a qs of which focal length too. Most macro work one is not using fast apertures. I find the sony MF works very well as does its AF at different distances. The sony is cheaper in India and one can get a used very good quality for around 500$. The sigma goes for almost a 1000$. I feel that ergonomically the sony is better. However the older lighter sigma lenses are great to use handheld too
I think I'll go with the Sony lens. OSS, fast autofocus are absolutely significant features. It will come in handy in weddings for candid as well as ring shots. Also, currently, It is cheaper than the Sigma here in Mumbai.
The Sony has such a fast focus speed that it will make more fun taking pictures, while you wait for the Sigma to focus, you will already gotten fast 3 shots.
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...😂😂
I would take the sony, most of the time it's not about macro. Anything could happen while we focus on macro. That's when i need the slide-magically fast autofocus.
I can do whatever I want my friend, its my video lol. Extreme corner sharpness is much less important on a macro lens for me. AF and IS makes it all around better.
@@StefanMalloch all cameras from Sony has IBIS and will do a good enough job, also - it’s not only the corner sharpness on the Sigma, go read the technical details about sharpness, it’s a clear winner. And yea, you can do whatever you want - you just end up with zero credibility, but maybe that’s why you only have 40k followers :) oh well …. Todelooooooo motherfu………👋
watch other review, we all know that the sigma is sharper and better. I own both and the sigma is the sharper one. Most Sonys camera have Image Stabilization, so dont need on lens.
Which one are you picking up?
Thanks for another great review - the Sony ended up picking me by being on an incredible Black Friday deal where it was 30% less than the Sigma! Now to find some really small stuff to photograph...
probably grabbing the sony for my a7 iv
how did you do the focus stacking though? the a7 IV doesnt have that built-in does it?
Thanks for the cpmparison video! However I think your rating concerning the performance is just wrong. The Sigma lens is sharper as you mentioned. If you also take a look at the bokeh (at macro and portrait distance) the winner is clearly the Sigma as the bokeh of the Sony can be swirly which I don't like at all. Also the Sony has visible longitudinal chromatic aberrations wjereas tje Sigma has not. I think the Sigma is apochromatic or almost apochromatic. Considering this the performance winner is imho clearly (and by far) the Sigma. I also tested both lenses side by side, kept the Sigma and sold the Sony.
I had to decide between these two and after comparing their features went for the Sony - the AF/MF clutch is underrated and gives you such control over focusing. No searching around with your finger trying to find & flick the AF/MF switch while keeping your subject in view. And as my macro lens also sees a lot of use as portrait/general lens the much better AF is super helpful. Finally as my secondary camera is not stabilised having OSS means I can use this lens on that too.
One area where the Sigma made the difference to me was use of the lens to scan film! In that case, the sharper lens is a must! You want the sharpest results possible and the Sigma doesn't disappoint! I found the results form my scans of 35mm and 120 film were amazing! Another plus was that the Sigma will focus perfectly on the surface of the film. When researching the two, the softer corners on the Sony was a determining factor! The fact that the Sigma lens is way cheaper than the Sony was a bonus! I have also used the lens for regular use and it performed well with sharp images and great color rendition!
my exact use! thank you!
@@gabbyg2724 You won't be disappointed! It's amazing for that use as well as it's other intended use!
I’m just starting in macro. So thanks for your comparison. I absolutely need the stabilization feature. so I am leaning towards SONY. Do you think this lens would work well on a Sony a 6100 camera?
This was a really helpful video, thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Great video! Very informative!
How do I find the magnification ratios on my digital screen whatsoever for my Sigma lens? Since they're not written on the lens.
I stick to 90mm (and I have sold my 85mm f/1.8) but during portrait photography, I notice that its autofocus is not as fast as 85mm, but acceptable.
I have a question though. Your profile photo looks so nice, I mean the lighting coming from one side. If I were to replicate the method, I am guessing you are using a studio light (not flash) on one side?
90mm Sony here. It resolves high enough so there's no need for higher. The OSS and the mechanical MF in combination makes it unmatched til the present day. For portraits, well I use a portrait lense 🤷🏻♂️. Why should I use a macro lense ?
The Sigma's sharpness is unreal! But the focus clutch is the one feature I didn't know I wanted.
I own the Sigma for quite some time, now I use it with the A7RV and I notice it hunts like crazy. Today I was photographing a bee and with Insect Eye AF the Sigma found the eye but was still continuesly focusing back and forth while shooting. Which made half the shots blurry. I'm wondering if the Sony also does this
Sigma are known to hunt focus, even adapted Canon lenses have better stickyness.
Hi what do you think of the new Sony 70-200 f4 macro lens. I am feeling like it can do two things vs just Macro. I have the Sony A7R5 and I use the Lumix S5ii withe new 100mm Macro lens so have that for Macro. Just feel that 70-200 might be a good lens. What do think 😊
I’m struggling to choose between the Sony 90 2.8 and the Sigma 105 2.8 macro lenses to pair with my Sony A7 IV. My primary use case is for product video and photo close ups, occasionally portrait photography and also video in general. Which one would you guys think would fit better my use? I know neither of the two have the fastest autofocus but I do want o have autofocus so is importan a decent performance for AF. Thanks in advanced
If in-lens stabilization is important, buy the Sony. If not, buy the Sigma. Put the savings from buying the Sigma towards the price of a Sony 85/1.8 for portrait work.
@@IanHobday thanks it’s a good advise. Would be ok the sigma for close up videos without the stabilisation? Or rather unstable?
@@DavidTechEs It really depends on how you're going to be doing the shooting. On a video tripod? On a gimbal? Handheld? If it's handheld you may find that no amount of stabilization helps, and that the depth of field you are working with is much too thin to make good video. In this case you might find that taking photos (stacked for DOF) and placing those in your video is better than using video itself.
Nice review. I had them both, had similiar conclusion, but my copies had bigger differences, sigma 105 was a lot sharper than sony 90, while sony had a lot better autufocus, like day and night, sigma was too much front heavy for longer session. Overall experience in macro was a bit frustrating with both of these lenses, wired focus and it's delay lost me a lot of pictures, ended up with manual laowa and sold sony and sigma.
Are both lenses also good for an aps-c camera? Like the Sony a6400?
Yes look at Arthur R's review on the 90mm with the a6400
I have only tried the Sigma and it is razor sharp. Both look great though.
Just a FYI, the manual focus of the Sigma 105 is not electronically compatible with the Sony camera (design manufacturing error). It requires a download from Sigma to work.
Interesting, first I’ve heard of that. Does that mean the sigma dock is necessary to update the lens?
Very balanced review & I love your photographs. I have the sony and the older sigma which was made during the transition from slr to dslr. It too has a clutch mechanism like the sony. And is much lighter - abt 450 odd grams. I also have the apo 180mm f5.6 older 1:2 sigma - also 400+ grams. Sony I find the best at all distances but I tend to use the sigma 180 the most for macro work. There is very little to separate the new sigma & the sony - its a qs of which focal length too. Most macro work one is not using fast apertures. I find the sony MF works very well as does its AF at different distances. The sony is cheaper in India and one can get a used very good quality for around 500$. The sigma goes for almost a 1000$. I feel that ergonomically the sony is better. However the older lighter sigma lenses are great to use handheld too
5:05 and Sigma is focus by wire while Sony has mechanical focus when clutch is pulled. Probably some difference in terms of handling.
I think I'll go with the Sony lens. OSS, fast autofocus are absolutely significant features. It will come in handy in weddings for candid as well as ring shots. Also, currently, It is cheaper than the Sigma here in Mumbai.
The Sony has such a fast focus speed that it will make more fun taking pictures, while you wait for the Sigma to focus, you will already gotten fast 3 shots.
Great comparison. You are right about Macro being tedious - but I find it the most compelling photos to look at, really L@@K at.
Totally agree!
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...😂😂
Sony 90mm 2.8 - my fav Sony Lens so far 🙂
I would take the sony, most of the time it's not about macro. Anything could happen while we focus on macro. That's when i need the slide-magically fast autofocus.
Sorry but when the Sigma is doing that much better in corner to corner sharpness, you can't give the 'performance' to Sony...
I can do whatever I want my friend, its my video lol. Extreme corner sharpness is much less important on a macro lens for me. AF and IS makes it all around better.
@@StefanMalloch all cameras from Sony has IBIS and will do a good enough job, also - it’s not only the corner sharpness on the Sigma, go read the technical details about sharpness, it’s a clear winner.
And yea, you can do whatever you want - you just end up with zero credibility, but maybe that’s why you only have 40k followers :) oh well …. Todelooooooo motherfu………👋
9 days ago
I can do whatever I want my friend, its my video lol. aRROGANTER JUST saying
Thing is even with a macro lens, you don’t just shoot macro. So c2c is important. Thanks for the video.
This answer at a reasonable critique is just arogant. Wow
Buy Sigma. People have issues with the 90mm all the time
Havn't had or heard of a single issue and I've used mine almost daily for years.
Both are the same price in the UK now. So the Sony is a bargain
watch other review, we all know that the sigma is sharper and better. I own both and the sigma is the sharper one. Most Sonys camera have Image Stabilization, so dont need on lens.