macro lens

[sudaplatov]

I am thinking of buying macro lens.
The option is Canon 100mm or Sigma 180mm.
What would you recomend and why?
Thanx in advance!

[lazoj]

sudaplatov wrote:
I am thinking of buying macro lens.
The option is Canon 100mm or Sigma 180mm.
What would you recomend and why?
Thanx in advance!



Do a search over at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1019 and you will find a lot of threads. The Canon 100m, USM is a great lens, nice a sharp. I have heard the AF is slower in with the Sigma, but in most cases you would be using MF.

[ethan1219]

im a fan of the sigma...for the cost and the build of that lens...the extra stop lost is not much of a concern with macro as you will be stopping down for depth of field anyway....i like the extra length and it focuses internally.
180 with a 1D is like having 240....plenty to get just about anything
J

[sudaplatov]

Do I understand right that all these lens will do the same job?
I mean "the magnification is the same" - so say in order to shoot
something really small I need say Kenko tubes or something?
Thus the only difference is price/convinience/speed? Yes?
So despite these things I can produce more or less the same
pictures with any of them - yes?

[DoctorMoth]

I'm just about ready to buy the Canon 100mm (probably this weekend) Macro USM after doing quite a bit of netresearch on the subject, but one thing does puzzle me the Tokina 100mm Macro is advertised as a 1:2 life size macro and the Canon 100 Macro is advertised as a 1:1 lifesize macro (also the Canon 180mm is advertised as a 1:1 lifesize macro!). Is the ratio of subject size in real life to size on film simply a feature of focusing distance rather than focal length of the lens? Overall, I decided on the Canon 100 Macro because nearly every review says it's the equal or better in sharpness to the much more expensive L version (the 180mm), plus it's a 2.8 instead of a 3.5. It's also slightly more compact (size and weight) for traveling or carrying around. If someone wants to talk me out of it please do so in 24 hours or it's going into the arsenel.

[Pekka]

doctormoth wrote:
I'm just about ready to buy the Canon 100mm (probably this weekend) Macro USM after doing quite a bit of netresearch on the subject, but one thing does puzzle me the Tokina 100mm Macro is advertised as a 1:2 life size macro and the Canon 100 Macro is advertised as a 1:1 lifesize macro (also the Canon 180mm is advertised as a 1:1 lifesize macro!). Is the ratio of subject size in real life to size on film simply a feature of focusing distance rather than focal length of the lens? Overall, I decided on the Canon 100 Macro because nearly every review says it's the equal or better in sharpness to the much more expensive L version (the 180mm), plus it's a 2.8 instead of a 3.5. It's also slightly more compact (size and weight) for traveling or carrying around. If someone wants to talk me out of it please do so in 24 hours or it's going into the arsenel.

I'm not talking you out of buying Canon 100mm - I'm thinking of swapping my 28-135IS to one myself :)
My D30 seems to be begging for a macro lens for the summer.

The difference of 1:1 in 50mm, 100mm and 180mm means that with longer focal lenght you can stay further away from the subject and still get it in "lifesize".

An old but well written article of macro photography:
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~parsog/Guy/macro.html