Macro lens dilemma - Canon, Tamron or Sigma ?

[Olegis]

Hi all.
This week I have a birthday, so I've decided to buy myself a lovely present - a macro lens, which I have always wanted. After searching and reading all around the Web, I have decided on 100mm focal length, which would be good compromise between the working distance and the cost - 50mm is nearly useless because of very short working distance at 1:1, and the 180mm lenses are quite pricey.

Now comes the question - which lens to buy ? The Canon 100mm f/2.8 seems like the best deal, featuring excellent optics and fast USM based AF. The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 is also very good optically, but has slow (some state "VERY slow and VERY noisy") AF. The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is also excellent optically, but the AF is also slower and noisier than that on Canon 100mm f/2.8. The prices - the Canon is the most expensive at $449 (I don't mind buying gray-market version, since I don't live in the US and the Canon service center in Israel does not honor the "worldwide" warranty), the Sigma is $370 and the Tamron sells for $365 at Deltainternational.com.

So what do you say ? Is the AF of the Sigma and the Tamron THAT slow and noisy ? Should I bite the bullet and just go for the Canon ?

P.S. I plan to use the lens not only for macros, but for occasional picture-takings as well - street photography, portraits etc.

[Adam Hicks]

The difference in price is minimal enough to warrant you going with the Canon. It's the better lens, it's fast to focus (though it likes to hunt around quite a bit, so be prepared for that) but it's razor sharp. The other advantage is that you'll get more than the price difference back when you go to sell. I bought my lens mint on eBay for right at $400, so they hold their value very well.

Adam

[roanjohn]

Don't rule out the new Tamron 150 f2.8 :-)

Ro1

[Olegis]

Thanks Adam.
The difference in price is quite significant - almost $100. And that's not including the hood - the Canon one sells for $35 ! :evil:

roanjohn - I didn't hear about this lens. Do you have more info on it ?

[Adam Hicks]

Well you won't really need the hood (esp. for macro stuff, unless you're taking macro shots of the sun :) ) As far as the price difference goes, it might be a little bit more to swallow now, but you will get that $100 back if you ever sell... and if you don't you'll be happy that you went ahead and bought the best of the bunch. Otherwise here's what happens.

You buy the Sigma for $370 and you don't get the sharp images you want. You sell it on eBay for $270 and you're out $100. You go buy the Canon lens you wished you'd bought in the first place for $449 which now costs you $549 + ebay listing fees. :roll: Save yourself some hassle!

Adam

[Olegis]

Good points, Adam, thanks.
I guess that the hood is needed anyway because the front element of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 is almost exposed. The hood will help with flare on bright sunny days and also serve as additional protection from occasional bumps.

[Scottes]

I have the Sigma 105mm. It hunts like crazy if you AF. Pictures are awesome, comparable to the Canon. For $100 *I* would buy the Canon now that I know. But if I had to save $100 I'd buy the Sigma.

Harumph. I think I paid $470 for my Sigma - B&H now says $370.

[Olegis]

For the additional $100 (+$35 for hood) I can buy one more Sandisk Ultra II 1GB CF card + all the S&H fees ... But the Canon is very tempting also ... :?

[Quinn Porter]

Like Scottes, I also bought the Sigma but would buy the Canon knowing what I know now. Assuming you don't get a bad sample, I think the image quality is about the same -- excellent. The Sigma really hunts sometimes, and even with the focus range limiter, it takes forever for the lens to move through the focus range. I hear the Canon also hunts often, but the USM allows it to move more quickly and quietly. The Sigma does come with a lens hood, but I don't like its design. It screws into the lens threads rather that using a bayonet mount. It can't be reversed for storage. Finally, The Canon has internal focusing (it doesn't get longer as the focus is changed). The Sigma gets very long at 1:1 magnification.

I just noticed you want to use this lens for other uses, including street photography. You will be very frustrated with the Sigma, it is useless for street photography.

[Jesper]

I have the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro. It's a superb lens. Super sharp, it's the sharpest lens I have, even sharper than the EF 50 f/1.8 II. Not only good for macro photography, but also for other subjects it's a great lens. The AF is very fast and silent on my 10D, thanks to the USM.

I've ordered it from B&H. Even with import duties, VAT and shipping costs, it was cheaper than what I could get it for from a good German Internet shop.

[Scottes]

I could quote Quinn verbatim - that it exactly what I've seen and how I feel about the Sigma.

[roanjohn]

roanjohn - I didn't hear about this lens. Do you have more info on it ?

OOPPSSS!! I meant Sigma:

http://www.cyberphoto.se/index.php?http://www.cyberphoto.se/sigma/150_dg.php

Ro1

[Jon]

I have the Tamron 90 and it's a very good lens. I've got that range covered with other lenses so I only use it for macro or when I need something faster than the zooms.

[hipshot]

I have the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro. It's a superb lens. Super sharp, it's the sharpest lens I have, even sharper than the EF 50 f/1.8 II. Not only good for macro photography, but also for other subjects it's a great lens. The AF is very fast and silent on my 10D, thanks to the USM.


What do lenses built for macro lack for non-macro?
I recently bought a cheaper tele-macro combo and now wish I split them up.

[WestFalcon]

I had the Sigma 105 Macro EX and loved it but sold it to buy the Canon 100 macro (usm). I love the canon and if I ever resell, they are like gold. I agree with Adam Hicks. You will never regret buying the Canon but you may always wish you had the Canon if you buy any of the others. The other lenses are all great lenses too but if cost is not a factor...go Canon!! I guess you might expect to hear that on this forum.

[Jon]

What do lenses built for macro lack for non-macro?
I recently bought a cheaper tele-macro combo and now wish I split them up.

Speed, but that's about it. All their virtues (flat field, good resolution and contrast) will extend throughout the range (unless, of course, you're buying a lens that's designed only for macro, like the Canon 65 mm).

[Scottes]

"Speed" around here can mean max aperture. I think Jon meant "autofocus speed" instead.

My Sigma 105mm is slow as a dog to AF, and hunts a lot. I played with a Tamron 90mm and it seemed faster, but still nothing like the speed of a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L.

Anyone have a comment on the AF speed of the Canon 100mm?

[Jon]

Nope. I was thinking aperture. 50 f/1.4 or 1.8 regular vs f/2.5 macro, 100 f/2 regular vs. f/2.8 macro, 200 f/2.8 regular vs. 180 f/3.5 macro.

[Jesper]

What do lenses built for macro lack for non-macro?
I recently bought a cheaper tele-macro combo and now wish I split them up.

Speed, but that's about it. All their virtues (flat field, good resolution and contrast) will extend throughout the range (unless, of course, you're buying a lens that's designed only for macro, like the Canon 65 mm).

No, speed (max. aperture or otherwise) is not the main difference.

Real macro lenses allow you to focus much closer to a subject than non-macro lenses. A real macro lens allows for at least 1:1 magnification, which means the subject in the image projected on the sensor or film has the same size as the subject in real life.

That means you can fill the frame with a subject measuring 22.5 x 15 mm, if you're using a 20D - enough to make a close-up photo of an insect.

By the way, the AF speed of the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro is VERY fast on my 10D. But for real macro photos, where the DOF is very shallow, you'll want to use manual focus anyway.

[taskerc]

Happy Birthday Olegis - the thread has been useful for me as well. :D

[Jon]

What do lenses built for macro lack for non-macro?
I recently bought a cheaper tele-macro combo and now wish I split them up.

Speed, but that's about it. All their virtues (flat field, good resolution and contrast) will extend throughout the range (unless, of course, you're buying a lens that's designed only for macro, like the Canon 65 mm).

No, speed (max. aperture or otherwise) is not the main difference.

Real macro lenses allow you to focus much closer to a subject than non-macro lenses. A real macro lens allows for at least 1:1 magnification, which means the subject in the image projected on the sensor or film has the same size as the subject in real life.

That means you can fill the frame with a subject measuring 22.5 x 15 mm, if you're using a 20D - enough to make a close-up photo of an insect.

By the way, the AF speed of the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro is VERY fast on my 10D. But for real macro photos, where the DOF is very shallow, you'll want to use manual focus anyway.

I refer you to his question quoted above, where he asked what macros lacked for non-macro use. No-one disputes that macros are better than non-macros for macro work. By the same token, non-macros have some advantages over macros for non-macro (general) photography. Most consistent is that macros have, virtually across the board, smaller maximum apertures than their non-macro counterparts.

[ron chappel]

Be aware that both sigma and tamron have new 'digital enhanced' models that are out allready or are about to be released.

I was looking into this same subject just the other day and found out a few things.
The tamron (just replaced model) had a VERY good reputation in all regards but for it's slow focus.I read about some magazine that tested all macro lenses recently inculding the newer 'Di' model tamron and it again got top marks (but i can't remember what was said about the focus speed)

The older EX sigma tends to be softer wide open than canon or tamron,hunts a little and has an awsomely stupid AF/MF switch idea :twisted:
I have one of these right now.It tests a little softer than the 50/1.8 but that's not as bad as it sounds-it's still a very sharp lens compared to any cheap zoom!
I've not heard any reports on the newer sigma yet

I had an older canon 100 macro which is reputed to be similar optically to the current USM model.Good thing that because it was unbelievably sharp! :D :D

Overall i'd say you'll be very happy with any of them but if you want to go non canon to save some money i'd recommend the tamron for sure over the sigma

[aam1234]

Any body know how close you can get to the subject with Canon 100 macro lens.

Thanks

[Jesper]

Any body know how close you can get to the subject with Canon 100 macro lens.

Thanks

Lookup the specs on Canon's website: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=155&m odelid=7400

0.31m (about 1 foot) from the film plane to the subject. That means about 15cm (0.5 feet) from the front of the lens to the subject.

[aam1234]

Thanks Jesper

[Olegis]

Thanks everybody, you've been extremely helpful !
5 minutes ago I ordered the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens, 58mm Hoya UV Multi Coated Glass Filter, 58mm Rubber Lens Hood (no way I would pay $35 for the one from Canon !) and SanDisk 1GB Ultra II card - all that from Adorama.

The only thing I need now is a good sturdy tripod ... 8)

Thanks again !

[Jesper]

Have fun with your new lens, you'll not be disappointed by it! :)

[Olegis]

Thanks !
I hope it will be here fast, considering all the Jewish holydays now - Yom Kippur today and Sukkoth holyday next week ...