JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro DG OS HSM is a macro lens for FF and APS-C, manufactured from 2011. The focus is done by Ultrasonic AF Motor (Ring-USM), it has image stabilization. The average price, when it has been added to the JuzaPhoto database, is 412 €;
167 users have given it an average vote of 9.5 out of 10.
MOUNT
This lens is available with the following mounts:
Canon EF: this lens is compatible with reflex fullframe and APS-C Canon EF.
Nikon F: this lens is compatible with reflex fullframe and APS-C Nikon.
Sony A-mount: this lens is compatible with reflex fullframe and APS-C Sony A-mount.
Sigma SA: this lens is compatible with reflex and mirrorless fullframe and APS-C Sigma SA-mount.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 201000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
Pros: Quality of Build; Metal barrel; Sharpness; Optical Stabiliser (though was very noisy on mine); HSM AF; Value, when compared to Nikon's own version; Standard kit, which includes two lenshoods (one for FX, a longer one for DX) and a decent case.
Cons: Weight; Noisy stabiliser (on mine)
Opinion: I bought this fine quality and well respected macro lens in mint condition used - and about a year later sold it back to the same seller (online trader) for only about £50 less. It was to replace an old plastic Tamron SP macro 90mm f2.8, which was very competitive in its sharpness but had an impossibly slow and basic screw-driven AF and no stabilisation. I then found that I could not sell this Tamron (I might have been able to give it away?) in the end and ended up with two macro lenses! The new Sigma was nearly twice the weight of the old Tamron and basically, I never took it anywhere and proved that I just don't do enough macro to justify owning it. IF I could afford to buy one now though, then I'd get the Nikkor 105mm VR, as it is supposedly just a little sharper than the Sigma and would banish the risk of having a really noisy stabilisation system. Or perhaps a new Tamron 90mm VC. (lighter). I did also find the Sigma's fastish f2.8 aperture 105mm on DX (157mm equivalent) to be quite useful to have with stabilisation, for hand-held night shots and live music photography. For now, I'm back to the old plastic Tamron, which does its job, at least. (Focused manually, which is how true macro shots are usually undertaken) However, if you are a true macro user and want a top quality optic, for the money, you cannot lose. As I found out, without a current replacement from Sigma, there is a strong market should you wish or need to sell it back on again, so your risks are low. 9/10
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Opinion:Target sigma 105 macro had for 50 days what I liked sharpness excellent blurry good construction a little plastic but good for the price it costs. What I didn't like noisy and not very precise slow focus. Replaced with canon 100 2.8 L (other thing) tropicalized 100 grams lighter excellent sharpness with sigma It is difficult to see the difference from one to the other blurred excellent more precise quiet and fast in focus and coast!!!!! If one takes shots on the drivestand manually focusing as most people do the sigma 105 is fine and spends less. If someone like me goes around with the montain bike and takes macro photos on the fly with freehand stabilizer the canon is better in everything and misses less photos. Sigma I recommend it but first try it !!! canon top but other expense:
Opinion:One of the best macros I've tried. The sharpness is very good as well as the blurred is well rendered. What makes it, in my opinion, sensational, is the value for money. For less than 400 euros you can buy a lens that has nothing to envy to the Nikon or Canon, indeed. The only flaw is the noise of the focus when the OS is active, but it's no big deal, since you certainly don't have to start a wedding. In conclusion, I highly recommend it. Is spending twice as much on the Nikon macro worth it? In my opinion, absolutely not!
Cons:Not compatible with Sigma Optimization Pro software, a bit plastic construction, not tropicalized, noisy stabilizer and not too effective
Opinion:Optical yield better than the Nikon 105 which costs twice as much. Otherwise better the Nikon. Being a macro lens, where what matters is the optical yield, the cost that is half of the Nikon tends to make it a good alternative purchase. It is a sharper hair than the Nikon at the edges and has fewer chromatic aberrations. The af is as precise and fast as the Nikon (not a lightning without a limiter, but it is a macro lens). It's very annoying that it's not compatible with the Sigma software to calibrate the microregulation based on the distance of maf. With Sigma tc 14 it goes well and is great for moving insects like butterflies. Overall a good product. You can see that the lower cost compared to the Nikon is not only Nital and brand, because compared to the Nikon is clearly built worse and is not tropicalized, but with the money with which you buy this, you buy half Nikon, so in the end it's fine. I sold my Nikon 105 2.8 vr used because it was sated and not recoverable with microregulation af (20 was not enough): as long as I used it on static subjects in live view no problem, but for subjects on the move it became impossible. With the Sigma, I was fine with the broken headphone because "20 compensates perfectly and with tc 14 I just need a .11.
Opinion:Undoubtedly an exceptional lens for sharpness and blurry, but not suitable for portraits as it needs pp to attenuate the "extreme" effect, the cost is undoubtedly low for a stabilized lens even if in macro the is is serves little, the color yield at least for my exemplary canon attack seemed too micro-contrasted and on the 6D sensor the red and orange colors appear unnatural perhaps makes it better on Nikon sensor because I see extraordinary photos. The stabilizer is effective but damn noisy and sometimes transmits microvibrations to the mirror so much that it perceives it in the crosshairs, that to say is an opticthat that complicit in the weight and what I said I have never loved more than that, at the same cost (used) I would have preferred the counterpart Canon not i.s. P.S. Incredibly my specimen is not compatible with the Sigma MC-11 adapter
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
