Canon 100 2.8 macro vs Sigma 180 3.5 macro

[mariusnagy]

Wich one should I choose?
Canon 100 2.8 macro or Sigma 180 3.5 macro??? :roll:

Does somebady worked with this 2?

The price is the same and no chance to get Canon 180 L :shock:

/Marius

[gkas]

The quality of the Canon 2.8 macro is superb. I'm not sure about the Sigma, as I've never used it. Other than optics, the 180 will give you a greater working distance over the 100. A lot of your decision will be based on what types of subject matter you're looking to photograph. If it's bugs, or something that will require a greater working distance, then maybe the Sigma. Other than that, I'd go with the Canon. I have it, and it's a great lens.

[mariusnagy]

How sharp are the image obtained with Sigma lens compare with Canon?

What problem, trouble could give the Sigma lens that make me sad not bought the Canon lens? :shock:

Actually I start lokking for Canon macro lens and I found this Sigma. I never had a Sigma lens. :lol:

/Marius

[Scottes]

I've got a Sigma 105mm Macro and it's pretty darned nice. Excellent optics - I don't the Canon would be *that* much better. Very well built.

My Sigma is a bit of a hunter on AF, and even has a hard time focusing even in moderate light. And I have developed a fear that one day the Sigma will not work if I ever get a new camera in a couple years - Sigma is kinda noted for this. I'm quite happy with my Sigma, but I wish I had spent the extra $50 for the Canon 100mm.

However, the longer working distance of the Sigma 180 vs the Canon 100 is huge, depending on what you're shooting. As gkas said, if you're shooting bugs or something that needs a longer working distance then go with the Sigma.

But be warned that Sigmas may not work with every camera that Canon makes in the coming years.

And if that's a concern you might want to look at the Tamron 180mm. I know that people with the Tamron 90mm Macro love it. The 180mm is even cheaper than the Sigma 180mm, and Tamron is licensed by Canon - or something to the effect that Tamron pays Canon for the info needed to make compatible lenses, whereas Sigma reverse-engineers Canon cameras and doesn't pay. Which may be why Sigmas sometimes don't work, whereas I've never heard of a Tamron not working.

[toglenn]

Another vote for the Tamron 180 Macro. I was always of the opinion the Tamron lenses were of dubious quality and not really worth any serious concern until I started seeing what this lens produces.

I purchased one and found it is truly and excellent lens with sharp images, good contrast and excellent color. It's not just a good macro lens, it's an excellent telephoto as well.

I've heard Tamron pays license fees to Canon for use of their lens mounts but have also read that Canon does not license their mounts so I'm not sure what that status is, but regardless, you should give it serious thought.

toglenn

[DaveG]

Wich one should I choose?
Canon 100 2.8 macro or Sigma 180 3.5 macro??? :roll:

Does somebady worked with this 2?

The price is the same and no chance to get Canon 180 L :shock:

/Marius

You might want to think about the non USM Canon 100 mm macro. As long as you aren't trying to use this lens for sports where quick AF is really needed, then the lack of USM isn't going to affect you very much, and I think that you could find a used one for a very attractive price.

I have that lens and have been more than happy with it. Would I prefer the USM? Yeah, sure. But I want it for macro stuff more than quick AF focusing - and I don't use AF for macro work anyway - so it doesn't matter and I'm glad that I saved some money.

By the way the 100 is going to effectively be a 160 mm lens on the 10D, while the 180 is more like a 290 mm! So you are going to be one long distance from your subject.

[cowman345]

http://www.davecollinsphoto.com/images/photos/gallery1/034.jpg

Taken with a Canon EF 100mm 2.8 Macro. I LOOOOVE this lens.

-dave-

[kraterz]

I'd recommend the Canon or the Tamron macros. They both beat the Sigma at all apertures. The Tamron is excellent wide open. Try the Tamron 180.

[mariusnagy]

It's seems that Canon 100 mm USM Macro lens would be the best to buy.
And, yes, that is 160 mm on digital camera that I have. :lol:
Also I think that 100 2.8 could be good for portraits :D , good DOF. Does somebody use it for that? Could be on digital 160mm to long for portraits? :roll:

/Marius

[drisley]

Beauty picture Cowman! 8)

[DaveG]

It's seems that Canon 100 mm USM Macro lens would be the best to buy.
And, yes, that is 160 mm on digital camera that I have. :lol:
Also I think that 100 2.8 could be good for portraits :D , good DOF. Does somebody use it for that? Could be on digital 160mm to long for portraits? :roll:

/Marius

The 100 is too long for conventional portraits. It's not that you don't get a nice shot, 'cause the compression blows out the background very effectively. The problem is that you'd have to be outside to use it with that focal length. I used to use my Nikkor 180 for outdoor portraits and it worked fine, but I also didn't fool myself into thinking that it could be used for inside stuff.

Even with the 35mm format the 100 mm focal length is too long (in my opinion) for wedding portraits. Most of these shots are done in the bride's living room, or perhaps a hotel suite; and anything longer than an 85 (in 35mm format) is going to be far too tight. For the 10D I'd say that the 50mm lens will do what you need it to do.

[mariusnagy]

OK, so let's forget about portrait :wink:
Still what is the most important thing in my decision will be the quality of the picture.
I would like to see some comparison between this lenses. I couldn't find any on net.

My feeling is that Canon will beat :lol:

/Marius

[Scottes]

Check Macro World over at fredmiranda.com. You'll find pictures, but probably not comparisons, of all the lenses mentioned.

[DaveG]

OK, so let's forget about portrait :wink:
Still what is the most important thing in my decision will be the quality of the picture.
I would like to see some comparison between this lenses. I couldn't find any on net.

My feeling is that Canon will beat :lol:

/Marius

My guess is that optically the Canon lens and the other lenses will match up very
nicely. As a matter of fact I doubt if you could tell the images apart. But that's
today. How the Brand X lenses will do with the passage of time is of a greater
concern. Magazines and web sites seem to test for sharpness but there isn't -
other than anecdotal - tests for durability.

You’ll have to decide if the amount of work you plan for this lens would
necessitate spending more money, to get an arguably better lens. If it’s
occasional shooting as a hobby then almost any lens will do. If you plan on using
it a lot, or for pro quality work, well ...

I guess the final point is lasting sales value. For some reason when I bring that
up people get all antsy, like you’re not supposed to think this way. But if you
preserve the value of the lens (UV filter type of thing, although not on a macro
lens) and buy a good one in the first place; then you will get a lot more money
out of it a few years down the line. And especially if you buy a used lens. I got
my non USM 100 macro for $400 Canadian, and it is in absolutely mint shape. If
I wanted to sell it in a few years I would expect to get at least that much for it.