willaim Loc: Sunny Southern California

Both are very good lenses. I have the Tamron 90mm macro and have no complaints. However, the Sigma 105 lets you be a bit farther away so you don't scare or disturb the subject you are shooting.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I support the view that macro/micro lenses from established manufactures are ALL similarly very good. So pick one based on weight, ergonomics, and cost. Any difference in optical performance is so slight you would be hard pressed to see the difference.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

About the last thing you need to worry about with macro lenses is image quality. Practically any macro lens made the last 30 years will have superb image quality. It's more the other features of the lenses that sets them apart from each other: focal length, price, etc.

Image stabilization (Nikon VR, Sigma OS, Tamron VC, Canon IS, Sony OSS) is actually of little help at higher magnifications. I've been using a bunch of image stabilized non-macro lenses for over fifteen years and I consider it one of the best innovations in photography over the last few decades... Especially with telephotos, though it can be a nice feature on shorter focal lengths too. HOWEVER, an exception is macro lenses. It's so ineffective with them that I wouldn't make it a very high priority unless you plan to use the lens a lot for non-macro distances... i.e., as a more standard telephoto. In other words, if you go the extra effort and expense to get a stabilized macro lens, you really won't see much benefit from it while shooting macro images, but might when shooting other things. Even with stabilization, at high macro mags you'll still likely need to use some sort of support... a tripod or at lease a monopod... and/or flash to help freeze movement. I have five different macro lenses... none of them have image stabilization. Instead, three are fitted with tripod mounting rings, including a 65mm designed for ultra high 5:1 magnification, a 100mm and a 180mm (both the latter 1:1 lenses). More compact 60mm and 90mm macro lenses in my kit don't have tripod mounting rings, instead I put the camera directly on a support much of the time when using them.

Neither of the used lenses you're considering appear to have stabilization, but I wouldn't worry very much about that. It would add cost to get it. A Nikkor 105mm with VR costs nearly $900 new ($700-ish used). Tamron SP 90mm Macro with VC costs $649 new (the non-VC version is $500 new). The Sigma 105mm with OS is on sale right now, but still costs $519 new. You might find these for a bit less used too... but probably not the $300 you're contemplating spending. If you don't already have one, put the money saved into a good tripod, good monopod... or possibly a macro flash rig (personally I prefer the look of a "twin light" for macro work up to 1:1 or a little more... I do use a ring light, but only for ultra high magnification work). Those will be more helpful than stabilization, getting sharp shots free of "camera shake" blur.

I'm partial to Tamron SP lenses because I really like the way they render color. But if the Sigma 105mm has "HSM", it will likely be faster focusing than that particular Tamron. Not that any macro lens is especially fast focusing. Due to the shallow depth of field inherent with high magnification photography, which in turn calls for a high degree of focus accuracy, most (all?) use a "long throw" focus design... emphasizing accuracy over speed. This applies to both manual and auto focus with the lenses. In fact, you might find manual focusing more convenient for much macro work, so slower AF may not be a concern unless you hope to use the lens a lot for other non-macro purposes. It is possible the Sigma doesn't have "HSM" (ultrasonic focus drive)... there was an earlier version of the lens without it.

Many macro lenses have a "focus limiter" to help with AF speed. This can be set to limit the range of focus the lens will use, so that it functions faster. Simple focus limiters have two settings: full range and one that's limited to non-macro distances. More advanced ones may have three ranges: full range and two others (not all use it, but IMO the best design for those is if one of the alternative ranges is "macro only"... some instead just provide two different non-macro ranges).

The Tamron lens you're looking at isn't "IF"... it's not "internal focusing". This means it will increase in length when focused closer. At the highest magnification it might be nearly twice the length it is when focused to infinity. This reduces working distance between the front of the lens and the subject. I don't know about that particular Sigma lens.... it might be IF or not, too. Macro lenses capable of full 1:1 magnification in the 90, 100, 105mm focal length range will likely have a Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) of about 12" at full 1:1 magnification. But MFD and working distance are not the same. MFD is measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera to the subject. So part of that distance is occupied by about 1.5" of camera, plus the length of the lens itself, plus anything installed on the front of the lens (filter, hood, flash, etc.)

You can probably find the specification for both those lenses online.... their length being one important thing, whether or not they are IF being another. By the way, IF design lenses may not change length when focused closer, but they typically are longer than non-if lenses to start with. Plus, IF lenses actually change focal length when focused closer. For example, one 100mm IF macro lens I use at its maximum 1:1 magnification (closest possible focus), actually measures to be closer to 70mm. You really don't notice this while using an IF lens... but it could be important if doing calculations for precise sizing.

That Tamron lens you mention is "Di" and the Sigma is "DG" (not just "D")... In both cases this indicates they are full frame compatible, so will be fully usable on your APS-C D7200... or on a full frame Nikon DSLR should you ever get one in the future.

I agree with several other responses, that I think you will find the 90 or 105mm focal length useful, particularly after using a 40mm macro lens, which has about 6" MFD, but only about 1.5" of working distance at it's max magnificaiton. When folks are shopping for a macro lens I usually recommend a 90/100/105 as a good choice because they give a reasonable working distance that might be needed with shy subjects, plus it helps avoid accidentally shading your subjects. A 40mm lens can be handy in a studio situation with small, inanimate subjects, though, where you have more control over lighting and may need to reach out and adjust subjects while looking through the viewfinder. But a longer focal length is usually better for field work. I also recommend the 90/100/1o5 lenses for general purpose macro shooting, over longer ones like 150, 180 or 200mm. The longer focal lengths can give even more working distance that might be necessary with some subjects (ones that bite or sting and are poisonous!). However, the longer lenses also are considerably more difficult to hold steady.... You're even more likely to need a tripod or monopod with them. In addition, depth of field is even shallower with a longer focal length and it may be necessary to stop the lens down farther... Which can mean using a slower shutter speed making it even more difficult to get a steady shot.

EDIT: I just did a quick search and found a review of the Sigma 105mm (non-HSM version) you might find helpful. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx Bryan's reviews are thorough and his "image quality" tool gives you means of comparing any two lenses side by side. To my eye, the Sigma appears sharper wide open, but they are pretty much identical at a middle aperture. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=377&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=392&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3 Note: That comparison is done using full frame camera. Using the lens on an APS-C camera such as yours, the corner test shots will be irrelevant because that portion of the image is cropped away by the smaller format sensor.

Bryan's main emphasis is on Canon gear instead of Nikon, but even so you can still get some idea how the lenses perform (so long as the same or very similar camera model is used for both). Ken Rockwell does a lot of Nikon gear testing... you might check his site too (though I find Bryan's reviews much more informative, on the whole... plus, KR clutters up his reviews with way-too-large images). BTW, the non-HSM Sigma appears to also be a non-IF lens (the "OS" version that superseded it is IF).

Bertk Loc: NY

amfoto1 - thank you for your elaborate explanation. I am also looking for a Macro Lens and was going to get Tamron D90 Di VC but might settle for the older version. Might find out more at a seminar tonight. Its at Berger Bros in Syosset. Its given by Tamron.

By the way Tamron makes lenses for Canon and Nikon, but don't know if the glass is by Tamron or by the individual company. will find out tonight.

Jim750 Loc: Easton,Pa

Check out the Tokina 100mm macro ,awesome lens. Bought mine refurbished from Tokina for $250.00.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

On the subject of Image Stabilization, I agree that it seems of limited use for close-up or macro. But if you want to also use the lens for close landscape or portraits, the feature will help. Or you can just use a 'steadying pole' to steady yourself when shooting. That is basically image stabilization that costs about $1.

Jim70 Loc: Delaware

True - you might also investigate reversed enlarging lenses. I have 2 I use with my D7100 and am pretty happy with the performance. Cost is pretty low for high quality lenses (6 element seems to be best).

duck72 Loc: Laurel Ridge, PA

Pontificating/opinionating on another's budget. Ah-well.

donald4u Loc: California

Both are great lens. I like the Sigma F 2.8 because it doesn't disturb the subject.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I also shoot this lens on a D7200 and I concur. One of my favorite lenses. I wish they also made it in a M4/3 mount.

tuomi1947

How do you like your tokina 100 , I am trying to improve my Nikon 40 mm , which I am selling , Nikon 105 is not in price range have read this is ad good and better in many cases.?