Sigma or Tamron - Macro lens

Hi
I'm planning to buy a lens for shooting macro. I've a Canon 30D. I'm looking for Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm lenses. Though I"m tempted by Canon 100mm it's at least $100 expensive. Let me know your experiences.

Regards
Gautham

I've been using the Sigma 105mm for a few years now and have had very good luck with it.

I've hardly ever heard anybody say that their macro lens didn't perform very well. So you can't go wrong basically. What's more important than the brand (since all are o.k.) is probably the focal length - meaning do you want something in the 50/60, the 90/100/105 or the 150/180/200 range. Depending on what an where you shoot, you'll have to take the right decision. That being said, 105 has worked well for me (in my case a micro Nikkor).

Basil

It's true, you can hardly go wrong with any macro lens. I shot macro for 15 years before I turned to birds. I just recently bought a Canon 100mm f 2.8 macro lens. I already have diopter lenses, extension tubes, and teleconverters to use with the lens. The canon 100mm macro doesn't change length like the other 90/100mm macro lenses and has an optional tripod collar, which I bought. It is far easier to use this lens with flash than it is to use flash with any other 90/100mm macro offering.

I used the Tamron 90mm macro lens for 15 years. Aside from the lens getting longer when focused closer, I made many wonderful images with it. The only reason I sold it was because it was not internal focus. It is probably just a wee tad sharper than the Canon 100mm f 2.8 at f 2.8 but the images from the 2 lenses are nearly indistinguishable after f 5.6 to f 22. Tamron's color rendering is just a hair bit too warm/red for my tastes now, whereas the Canon is more neutral in rendering colors on my 1D MkII and on my 30D.

Thanks folks for the help. I've decided to go for Sigma 105mm.