What would be the best macro kit?

[squishy]

That's strange. Mine focuses pretty snappy in good light. hunts a bit in low light, but if I use the limiter and edge the focus in the right direction manually, it's fine.

[gez]

OP for extreme macro a bit latter think of buying a cheap £30.00 ebay raynox 250... they are cracking & just click on/off to a macro lens.

[johnf3f]

Originally Posted by turkeyneck

I'm using a Tamron 90mm but I wish I hadn't hadn't been such a cheap scape and gone for an OS lens.
The Tamron image I find is great but I think it would've made life a lot easier with an OS type lens.
Whats the old adage 'buy cheap, buy twice' something like that.

Don't knock the Tamron! A close friend of mine uses one for technical and defect photos in the laboratory where he works. He has also used my Canon 100 f2.8 quite a bit and rates the Tamron as better in some respects especially the fact that he finds it sharper than the Canon, though not as "Pictorial" in his parlance. He rates the Tamron very highly but (like me) prefers the Canon. However the tamron is no dunce - it's a very good lens according to him and many reviewers.
P.S. If you are trying to shoot macro hand-held then I expect stabilisation is VERY handy - I, after many failures, try to use a tripod whenever possible!

[turkeyneck]

I'm not knocking the Tamron, in fact the image quality is very good, but I use a macro tripod 80% of the time which is fine, the other 20% I use a monopod which is OK may but I may have to take several shots with the monopod, whereby I think (I may be wrong) if the camera had OS I may not require to replicate the shot to ensure sharp images.
The above was taken with the Tamron, using a tripod. So Nowt wrong with that, not with my duff eyes any way

[turkeyneck]

It would be nice to try the Sigma out against the Tamron, as these are the two lenses that I suppose most people would consider as a third party macro

[johnf3f]

From what I read the Sigma has better colour but is not as sharp as the Tamron (few are) - swings and roundabouts - but both are very good.
My main problem with shooting closeup/macro is fore and aft movement rather than side to side/up and down the IS does not help here (maybe I should drink less!). However from what I hear/read the Canon 100 f2.8L is is the "Dogs dangly bits" for macro and about as good as the 100 f2 for general photography which is no mean feat! I am deliberately NOT looking at one as I know I will be tempted!

[squishy]

Have a look at this comparison.
The-Digital-picture.com Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di vs Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX

They look pretty much identical to me! The tamron looks every so slightly better in the corners (on a full frame body) at f/4 and f/5.6, but the sigma looks very slightly better at f/2.8 and from f/8 onwards. I don't think there's enough difference there for anyone to see in everyday use unless you pixel peep on a side-by-side comparison!