View Full Version : Sigma 105 macro vs Canon 100 macro
6th of May 2008 (Tue), 18:02
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?
6th of May 2008 (Tue), 18:10
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.
And another that I took a while back, had to remove the annoying hair that was in the image:
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.
6th of May 2008 (Tue), 18:33
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:
6th of May 2008 (Tue), 20:05
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.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.