Sigma 105 macro vs Canon 100 macro

[JoYork]

Hi folks,

Am thinking about getting a macro lens and have sort of decided on the Canon 100 macro when I have the funds.

I notice Sigma do a 105 macro for £100 less... is the Canon worth the extra dough?

[Zansho]

The sigma is a fine lens. I have one and no complaints. It does take some getting used to the "cocking" style of focusing on the front though.

Here's a shot by the sigma with my 40D.



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2178/2277693700_628d7d5dfd_b.jpg


And another that I took a while back, had to remove the annoying hair that was in the image:


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2084/2472369024_c57b3524b0.jpg


The Canon's a great lens, I like it a lot too. The only drawback I don't like with the sigma is the fact that the front element really goes out a far distance when you're focusing.

[argyle]

Had the Canon 100 USM version for a fairly long time...insanely sharp and very fast focusing (I typically use MF for macro, and AF for non-macro use). I considered the Sigma 105, but passed on it due to the front element that moves when focusing. I recently sold the Canon 100 and went for more reach with the Sigma 150...another excellent macro lens.

Canon 100 USM:
http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/261001964_4VhTM-L.jpg

Sigma 150:
http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/269442305_weTAa-L.jpg

[Mr. Clean]

They're really at two different price points. By the time you properly outfit the Canon 100, you're in the Sigma 150 neighborhood.
Price aside though, I'd go with the Canon.