They are 2 different kinds of lenses - one a dedicated macro but also good at all distances whereas the sigma is a very compact ergonomic lens with better mfd than other lenses in this category - but without the magnification range of a 1:1 macro. I love the sony lens as it is very versatile - gives excellent detail at several ranges & I use it for macro to landscape & architecture on the sony a7r4. OSS also makes it good for video macro etc. The sigma I series lenses have a special feel & design+build quality. If one does not need the macro range then sigma is a great option.
I did buy the Sony, 90mm, f2.8, macro and while sharpness and macro was everything (more) than I thought it would be I ended up returning it for a few reasons significant to me. I found the auto focus a little slow at times, which caused me to miss shots for moving subjects. It was heavier and larger than any of the other lenses I own, which caused me to hesitate bringing it with me to shoot. It was also very expensive. I knew I would be giving up the impressive macro features, but I am so much happier with the Sigma 90mm, f2.8. The Sigma is giving me all the wonderful sharpness of the Sony, at 1/2 the size and weight, and 1/2 the price. Whats more, its length and weight doesn’t deter me from bringing it with me and using it. It fits nicely in my bag with my other lenses and is available to me to use when out shooting.
Interesting. The Sony 90mm is now considered a pretty old lens and I would not be surprised if Sony came up with a new 90mm or 105mm Macro with new AF and some other changes, Still for macro it's amazing. for portraits, there are better lenses for sure. We own both lenses and the Sigma has a ton of miss focuses although it's a very fun lens and it's great when the AF works well.
The Sony is a very good lens overall (was one of the best Sony lenses for years) but it does show its age. I would guess that in a year or two we will see a new version (it might be 90mm and maybe be 100 or 105mm though) with improved AF and a few other features maybe from the GM series.
@chesslover8829 I did own the Sony 90mm, f2.8, macro, G, (returned it), and found it to be remarkably sharp, especially in close up macro. I returned it for the smaller, lighter, and 1/2 priced Sigma, 90mm, f2.8 which doesn’t have the macro capability, but is every bit as sharp across the frame. Corner sharpness in real world shooting with the Sony 90mm was never was a problem for me. I value the chart tests for the insight they give on optical performance and characteristics, (distortion, vignette, sharpness, contrast across the frame and differing apertures), but the chart can be a poor proxy at times for practical real world shooting. Personally, I rarely/never examine whats going on in the far extreme corners of the image because whats in center overpowers it. There maybe other reasons to discount Sony’s 90mm, f2.8 but I wouldn’t place a lot of weight on the corners.
@Cthames123 I appreciate your thoughtful response. When I wrote my comment, I was too concerned with sharpness and lens performance. Now, I'm much less concerned about those attributes and more interested in making images that are not too clinical and boring. I want to find a way to emulate photos that were popular about 120 years ago by photographers like Steichen and Stieglitz. What a turnaround.
@@chesslover8829 Thanks for the response, sharing your style, and what you are purposefully going after tight now! At the end of the day we all have the right to value what we find important, and pursue it, right?! After all, it is our own hard earned money, time, and energy we are spending, right?! One of many great things about taking photographs is there are a myriad of beautiful solutions. An academic could find everything clinically wrong with a photograph and critique it to shreds and others could say; “I get it!”, “It’s beautiful!”, “give me one…no give me two!” Thanks for sharing and keep shooting!
Good , useful review. I shoot Sony A series with old Minolta and Sigmas It all works. I cant be too fussy. I work cheap, or free for REAL causes where nobody else gets paid. If the photo I create gives the viewer a pretty good idea of what I was aiming at,, for the price they are paying, they oughta be really happy.
They are 2 different kinds of lenses - one a dedicated macro but also good at all distances whereas the sigma is a very compact ergonomic lens with better mfd than other lenses in this category - but without the magnification range of a 1:1 macro. I love the sony lens as it is very versatile - gives excellent detail at several ranges & I use it for macro to landscape & architecture on the sony a7r4. OSS also makes it good for video macro etc. The sigma I series lenses have a special feel & design+build quality. If one does not need the macro range then sigma is a great option.
Totally agree.
I did buy the Sony, 90mm, f2.8, macro and while sharpness and macro was everything (more) than I thought it would be I ended up returning it for a few reasons significant to me. I found the auto focus a little slow at times, which caused me to miss shots for moving subjects. It was heavier and larger than any of the other lenses I own, which caused me to hesitate bringing it with me to shoot. It was also very expensive. I knew I would be giving up the impressive macro features, but I am so much happier with the Sigma 90mm, f2.8. The Sigma is giving me all the wonderful sharpness of the Sony, at 1/2 the size and weight, and 1/2 the price. Whats more, its length and weight doesn’t deter me from bringing it with me and using it. It fits nicely in my bag with my other lenses and is available to me to use when out shooting.
Interesting. The Sony 90mm is now considered a pretty old lens and I would not be surprised if Sony came up with a new 90mm or 105mm Macro with new AF and some other changes, Still for macro it's amazing. for portraits, there are better lenses for sure. We own both lenses and the Sigma has a ton of miss focuses although it's a very fun lens and it's great when the AF works well.
A well made and useful review, thank you.
Thank you, Lorenzo :) more like this to come soon.
I love sony 90mm😍😍
What I find surprising is that the Sony lens is not sharper in the corners when considering its price.
The Sony is a very good lens overall (was one of the best Sony lenses for years) but it does show its age. I would guess that in a year or two we will see a new version (it might be 90mm and maybe be 100 or 105mm though) with improved AF and a few other features maybe from the GM series.
@@IddoGenuth I think you're right.
@chesslover8829 I did own the Sony 90mm, f2.8, macro, G, (returned it), and found it to be remarkably sharp, especially in close up macro. I returned it for the smaller, lighter, and 1/2 priced Sigma, 90mm, f2.8 which doesn’t have the macro capability, but is every bit as sharp across the frame. Corner sharpness in real world shooting with the Sony 90mm was never was a problem for me. I value the chart tests for the insight they give on optical performance and characteristics, (distortion, vignette, sharpness, contrast across the frame and differing apertures), but the chart can be a poor proxy at times for practical real world shooting. Personally, I rarely/never examine whats going on in the far extreme corners of the image because whats in center overpowers it. There maybe other reasons to discount Sony’s 90mm, f2.8 but I wouldn’t place a lot of weight on the corners.
@Cthames123 I appreciate your thoughtful response. When I wrote my comment, I was too concerned with sharpness and lens performance. Now, I'm much less concerned about those attributes and more interested in making images that are not too clinical and boring. I want to find a way to emulate photos that were popular about 120 years ago by photographers like Steichen and Stieglitz. What a turnaround.
@@chesslover8829 Thanks for the response, sharing your style, and what you are purposefully going after tight now! At the end of the day we all have the right to value what we find important, and pursue it, right?! After all, it is our own hard earned money, time, and energy we are spending, right?! One of many great things about taking photographs is there are a myriad of beautiful solutions. An academic could find everything clinically wrong with a photograph and critique it to shreds and others could say; “I get it!”, “It’s beautiful!”, “give me one…no give me two!” Thanks for sharing and keep shooting!
Good , useful review. I shoot Sony A series with old Minolta and Sigmas It all works. I cant be too fussy. I work cheap, or free for REAL causes where nobody else gets paid. If the photo I create gives the viewer a pretty good idea of what I was aiming at,, for the price they are paying, they oughta be really happy.