Sigma 50 Macro vs. Canon 60 Macro

[david888lee]

Tried looking it up, but couldn't find a comparison between these two. I would love to have a macro lens, however I would not like to pay too much for it. The Sigma is 100 dollars cheaper, and so I was just wondering what is the benefit of buying the Canon 60 Macro, since both seem very sharp. What do you guys recommend. Thanks!

[mrkgoo]

I don't know much about the Sigma 50 Macro, but my Canon ef-s 60mm macro is hands-down, the lens in my repertoire that gives the best image quality.

[david888lee]

I don't know much about the Sigma 50 Macro, but my Canon ef-s 60mm macro is hands-down, the lens in my repertoire that gives the best image quality.

thanks for the input. i have no doubt that the Canon 60 is a very sharp lens as reviews on here and at fredmiranda have shown, however I guess I'm just trying to justify the extra 30% cost of the Canon lens versus the sigma counterpart. so if anyone has any input with experience with the sigma that would be really helpful. thanks!

[david888lee]

or how about the sigma 70 f/2.8. sigh... so many choices. so right now im stuck between sigma 50, sigma 70 and canon 60 maco

[Tee Why]

I think it depends a lot on how often you are going to use it and if you plan on going full frame in the near future. I have the Sigma and used my buddies Canon 60mm so I'm familiar with both.

Optically, the Canon may be a touch sharper but both are very sharp lenses so I'd not make this the deciding factor. If you plan on doing a lot of shooting with the macro lens, then the Canon may be the better lens b/c it has a quick and quiet USM AF and the lens does not extend while focusing. You probably will have to shell out more for a hood too to protect the front element while you are focusing close.

The sigma extends out while focusing but comes with a free hood and the AF is noisy and slower. But it's made for a full frame so if you plan on having a cropped and a FF or upgrading, this will work with both bodies.

If this is an occassional lens, I'd probably go with the Sigma since it would be easier to justify the price. If you do plan on using the lens a lot and/or cannot tolerated slow AF motors, then the Canon may be a better lens for you.

The Sigma 70mm macro is another fantastic lens but it' AF and build is very much like the Sigma 50. Once again, if you want more working distance and/or crop and FF compatibility, this may be a good lens, but it costs about as much as the Canon so Canon may offer more features for the buck in this case.

Good luck.

[david888lee]

I think it depends a lot on how often you are going to use it and if you plan on going full frame in the near future. I have the Sigma and used my buddies Canon 60mm so I'm familiar with both.

Optically, the Canon may be a touch sharper but both are very sharp lenses so I'd not make this the deciding factor. If you plan on doing a lot of shooting with the macro lens, then the Canon may be the better lens b/c it has a quick and quiet USM AF and the lens does not extend while focusing. You probably will have to shell out more for a hood too to protect the front element while you are focusing close.

The sigma extends out while focusing but comes with a free hood and the AF is noisy and slower. But it's made for a full frame so if you plan on having a cropped and a FF or upgrading, this will work with both bodies.

If this is an occassional lens, I'd probably go with the Sigma since it would be easier to justify the price. If you do plan on using the lens a lot and/or cannot tolerated slow AF motors, then the Canon may be a better lens for you.

The Sigma 70mm macro is another fantastic lens but it' AF and build is very much like the Sigma 50. Once again, if you want more working distance and/or crop and FF compatibility, this may be a good lens, but it costs about as much as the Canon so Canon may offer more features for the buck in this case.

Good luck.

Thanks for the response. That's what I was looking for. Just a quick question. When you shoot macro, you're primarily shooting in manual focus? So the AF noise and speed would be in relation to if I were to use the lens as a normal lens. If that's the case, then the AF wouldn't bother me, since I would be manually focusing it most of the time.

[mrkgoo]

Just to add my experience with the EF-S60mm - the AF is not that fast - I think it's deliberately slow to allow for accurate focus.

[gasrocks]

BIggest difference is the 60 is an ef-s lens. Will not work on FF or 1.3x crop bodies. Longer focal lengths give you a more comfortable working distance. Many use a 50/60 macro indoors for things like coins, stamps, copy work, etc. The 100/150/180 lengths are nice outdoors for skittish subjects like bugs.

[n1as]

EF-S is an internal focus lens so the size stays the same. The Sigma grows as you focus closer.

I was about to buy the Sigma when a used EF-S 60 became available. It sure is a sweet lens. Very sharp and so far, the focusing is pretty close to my 50 f/1.4. I've even used the 60 macro to shoot some indoor basketball and it worked pretty well.

[versedmb]

I have owned both lenses. The focusing on the Sigma drove me nuts and I didn't like the extending front element of the Sigma. Get the Canon 60; its an awesome lens for the money - I use it for portraits, sports, landscapes, as well as macro/close-up.