Macro Lens?

[DepthOfField]

Is this a good for dedicated Macro shooting? Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro

[Kevin034]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

[Zansho]

This was shot with a Sigma 105 2.8 Macro.

Straight out of camera, no pp work.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/2424250320_ee5d6ca081.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2192/2424248914_b173a3abc9.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2424247580_8a6a566239.jpg



On a side note.. my sensor needs a cleaning. I just saw the offending white specks and "string" on my rose shot.

[Grentz]

Yes, its a good lens.

Not quite as good as the 100mm macro canon (and priced as such), but still very good.

One thing not nice about the Sigma is that it extends to focus, instead of being internal focus like the Canon (in the review there are comparisons of the 2 lenses):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

[Zansho]

Yes, its a good lens.

Not quite as good as the 100mm macro canon (and priced as such), but still very good.

One thing not nice about the Sigma is that it extends to focus, instead of being internal focus like the Canon (in the review there are comparisons of the 2 lenses):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx




Yeah, I'll agree with you on that one. The sigma does have a tendency to hunt a tad, and the barrel extends for focusing. Ideally, I'd like to have the 180 3.5 macro, but I'm not spending 1.2k for a lens that I'll hardly use that much. I got the sigma for my ring shots (wedding work) and to dabble around with.

[tracer bullet]

If you go with the Sigma, just be sure to get the verson that's intended for digital. Otherwise, you'll likely see an "error 99" code like I did.

[scot079]

The Sigma 150mm macro is a very nice lens as well. Loaded w/ features like internal focus and L build quality (oh and fantabulous IQ) Used to own it...here's some samples.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/scot079/IMG_4115.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/scot079/IMG_4113.jpg

[equetefue]

If you go with the Sigma, just be sure to get the verson that's intended for digital. Otherwise, you'll likely see an "error 99" code like I did.


Thats is not true...


The old Sigma lenses had to be sent back to get re-chip By sigma for use on newer body.

These lenses are not old at all.

Go to macro section and not one person has problems with the 105 non DG on newer bodies like the 40D.

[TeamSpeed]

Here is a shot from yesterday using my Sigma 105mm macro. Like the lens IQ, don't really like the clutch action for AF, etc. It is okay once you get used to it, and is a great lens otherwise, IQ and build.

[scot079]

A+ on the dragonfly stalking skills!

[Lester Wareham]

The Siggy 105 has a very good rep. The Canon 100 is better and has more features IMHO, but IQ between the two is probably indistinguishable in real life.

You might what to read the only life size macro test I know of (except my own which doesn't include the Siggy).

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nnplus.de%2Fmacro%2FM acro100.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

[George Chew]

Greetings,
Sigma has been providing good IQ for the top of the range lenses. I do see mixed reviews of their 105mm and 150mm macro. From sample images, they are very difficult to see any daylight among Sigs and Canons. However, there are sometime compatibility issues when Canon come out with new bodies. This is the main drawback of buying Sigma. Otherwise, they are value for money. Enjoy...

[WMS]

Generally all of the macro lenses made by the predominate lens manufacturers Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Pantex, Leica, Olympus and Sony will serve you well.

check out the macro thread and http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160960
thread. There are a lot of comments about the popular and not so popular macro lenses.

wayne

[RolyRatman]

According to the latest edition of Photoplus (Which I picked up for the macro lens test) they reckon the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro is worth a look, and I quote

" Throughout our macro tests, the Tamron proved amazingly sharp, right across the frame. Colour and contrast were equally impressive and the lens performed flawlessly when shooting at distance. Indeed at a maximum aperture of f/2.8 it was sharper than any other lens in the group."

It's £80 cheaper than the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and includes a lens hood.

Anyone tried this lens? I could be tempted to have a deeper look...

[Lester Wareham]

According to the latest edition of Photoplus (Which I picked up for the macro lens test) they reckon the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro is worth a look, and I quote

" Throughout our macro tests, the Tamron proved amazingly sharp, right across the frame. Colour and contrast were equally impressive and the lens performed flawlessly when shooting at distance. Indeed at a maximum aperture of f/2.8 it was sharper than any other lens in the group."

It's £80 cheaper than the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and includes a lens hood.

Anyone tried this lens? I could be tempted to have a deeper look...

The Tamron is a well respected lens also. They have a long reputation to, I remember the 90mm (presumably an earlier design) being well respected in my Canon FL/FD days in the late 70s early 80s.

However, I don't take too much notice of magazine reviews, they tend to be light weight and have too many vested interests because of their advertising revenue.

[yogestee]

According to the latest edition of Photoplus (Which I picked up for the macro lens test) they reckon the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro is worth a look, and I quote

" Throughout our macro tests, the Tamron proved amazingly sharp, right across the frame. Colour and contrast were equally impressive and the lens performed flawlessly when shooting at distance. Indeed at a maximum aperture of f/2.8 it was sharper than any other lens in the group."

It's £80 cheaper than the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and includes a lens hood.

Anyone tried this lens? I could be tempted to have a deeper look...

Agreed,,I've owned one for 18 months..Also a brilliant portrait lens..

[tracer bullet]

Thats is not true...


The old Sigma lenses had to be sent back to get re-chip By sigma for use on newer body.

These lenses are not old at all.

Go to macro section and not one person has problems with the 105 non DG on newer bodies like the 40D.

Well, let me be the first to say that *my* 105mm non DG *did* get the error message, on my 5D. I called Sigma and asked about sending it to them to be chipped, they said that mine had too old of a serial number, and they couldn't help me.

I'm glad that most people don't have an issue, but I stand by my opinion - it's not worth messing with, go with a DG right off the bat so you don't have to screw around with buying and reselling a lens that doesn't work, like I had to.

[beepclick]

It's £80 cheaper than the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and includes a lens hood.

Priced differently in US. Amazon: Tamron $458.50 - Canon $469.00. Tamron has 6-year warranty, Canon 1-year. (I'm neutral, don't own either lens).

Looks like the OP is in Florida.

[equetefue]

For what I gather the Tamron 90mm is the sharpest of the bunch but has the smallest working distance of the bunch. The Canon is the sharpest (very subjective though) but has the most useful AF. The Sigma is the better value for price, sharpness, built and IQ.

If I were using the lens strickly for macro work and would like to save some money I would opt for the Sigma 105mm; now; If I were to double the use of the lens for portrait I would opt for the Canon due to it's AF.

Ultimately it comes to the end user and what he's looking for. You can't go wront with none of this lenses. They are all top notch and offer amazing pictures when utilize correctly.

Hope that helps

Ed