Which Macro?

[DionM]

I have narrowed my choice to Sigma 105, Tamron 90 and Canon 100.

They are priced within a few hundred dollars of each other (and the above is in price order from cheapest to most expensive).

Tell me why the Canon 100 is the best :)

The main reason I can come up with buying it is never having to worry about rechipping with the Canon, and maybe ease of fitting a Canon macro ring light later ?

But I am tempted by the Sigma (and would get the Sigma before the Tamron, I think).

Main use will be macro (obviously!) but also as a nice sharp telephoto-ish prime to put onto my 20D for portraits and general "fast prime only" photography (which I do now and then with the 50).

I want 1:1 without tubes. Around 100mm is fine. Canon 100 is about the upper limit of my price range. I was thinking of tubes but I think I will get a dedicated Macro lens.

[Arsonist lolol]

I'll be interested to see the response to this as well.....because I'm looking at the Canon 100 too, so.....yeah. Bring on the responses!

[yellow_belly]

Hi, I havnt used the Canon or Tamron so I cant compare, but have the Sigma 105 and I am VERY happy with it, have a look at...
http://www.lifeinthewild.co.uk/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album01&id=dragon_body_filtered
which was taken with it :)

Just as a matter of interest, I find a macro of 100 (ish) can mean that you have to get a little close to things which may frighten them away, so I sometimes also use an extension tube which means I can get 1:1 from a little further away :)

Terry

[Biko]

UK magazine "Practicle Photography" did a review of Macro lenses a bit ago and all three came very close the Canon just took the lead.

They gave the Tamron 93% the Sigma 92% the Canon got 94%

[Biko]

Hi, I havnt used the Canon or Tamron so I cant compare, but have the Sigma 105 and I am VERY happy with it, have a look at...
http://www.lifeinthewild.co.uk/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album01&id=dragon_body_filtered
which was taken with it :)

Just as a matter of interest, I find a macro of 100 (ish) can mean that you have to get a little close to things which may frighten them away, so I sometimes also use an extension tube which means I can get 1:1 from a little further away :)

Terry

Great pic of a dragonfly Terry was the pic cropped? I've been using my G3 for macro and pleased with what I get but am looking for something for 20D which will be better.

[Loekito]

Had the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 Macro before. Now using Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro.
About the quality, I don't give any comments here, since I'm not an expert on this area.
I will talking more about the lens handling during taking shoot on the fields.
Based on my personal experience. The Canon 100 have FTM (Full-Time Manual), so whenever you want to switch from AF to MF, it can be done in snap. Just directly turn the focusing rings without need to use your finger to slide the AF/MF switch and slide the focusing rings (clutch-like) forward and backward as on the Sigma 105 (meaning you must do 2 step before you can switch from AF to MF, first: slide the AF/MF switch, second: slide the focusing rings)
The Canon 100mm have better built than sigma. Only a week after using it, my sigma begin to produce some annoying sound when turn the focusing ring. also the gold stripes in the front of the lens (like the red-stripe in L series lens) are begin to lose, like sticker losing it's glue to the lens body.
I'm not sure about the sound, is it because of the dust that coming in or what, since I'm doing field macro photography where dust are everywhere.
Canon using USM, focusing is more faster than sigma (huting to often). even I attach reversed 50mm lens in front of the lens, the USM still works! maybe some of you will said that in macro photography they always use MF, AF is usable. but in my experience, also because i'm wearing an eye-glasses, so the AF are helping me much.

Sorry, didn't mean to said that sigma is not a good lens. But maybe because of the price difference from Canon, will can justify the missing-feature that Canon provide.

regards,

Loekito

[tim]

Jaysus, that's an amazing picture of a dragonfly! How do you get a pic like that? Those things move so quickly, and they're so sensitive to movement around them. I didn't know you could get that much detail with those, but you say you have extension tubes... gota get me some of them things!

I wouldn't give up the full time manual on the Canon - it's a great lens.

[DionM]

Thanks guys.

The dragonfly pic "sold" the idea of a macro to my wife :)

Think I'll be adding a Canon 100 to the collection very soon. All reviews seem to indicate that its AF is somewhat usable for Macro, which is a bonus.

[tim]

Yes, the AF is usable, but sometimes you just want manual.

[J Rabin]

Bought the Sigma macro trying to save money and returned it, trading up for the Canon 100 macro within 24 hours. Why? The Sigma lens barrel moves (extends) during focus. This scares aways insects, is slow, noisy, and does not provide for FT-M (full-time manual focus). This was a bad feature. To me the Sigma may be sharp, but was a dud of a lens from the handling and use perspective in the field. My 30-year old Olympus macro was better.
The Canon 100 f/2.8 has been superb. Besides macro, I use it as a medium tele portrait lens and even shooting some low slight sports a f/2.8-f/4. People who say the Canon 100 f/2.8 macro is slow to focus are not using it. It is certainly as sharp as my L lenses.
When the camera is set to center focus point, it even auto focuses well on very small, low contrast objects (like jewlery). Images have stunning sharpness and contrast, especially shot f/11-f/22. This lens is a once in lifetime purchase keeper.
J

[yellow_belly]

Jaysus, that's an amazing picture of a dragonfly! How do you get a pic like that? Those things move so quickly, and they're so sensitive to movement around them. I didn't know you could get that much detail with those, but you say you have extension tubes... gota get me some of them things!Hi Tim, although I have the Sigma 105 macro I do find that also using extension tubes with it means I get the same magnification but from further away, I cant remember how far away I was for this but I approach slowly taking a shot and then move in a little, take another shot etc etc so I at least have something if the subject doesnt like what I am doing and scarpers - LOL.

Great pic of a dragonfly Terry was the pic cropped? Hi Biko, this shot is not cropped width ways but has a little taken off the top because the background was just a little distracting.

Glad you like the dragonfly - macro just AMAZES me :)

Terry

PS I cant agree with some of the posts knocking the Sigma as I dont have the same trouble they seem to have :)

[mdr]

It's no choice, go for the Canon 8-).

The newest versions of the Sigma and Tamron may beginning to rival the Canon when it comes optical quality. The Tamron is significantly better than the Sigma when it comes to optical quality.

But the deciding factor is that the Canon beats them hands down on autofocus and handling.

The FTM is joy when it comes to macro photography. Let the autofocus do its job and then fine tune with FTM to get the insects eye sharp. I couldn't do without it :D.

And the autofocus is oh so quiet and fast. Insects will do a runner as soon as the Sigma's and Tamron's autofocus kicks in, unless they are deaf ;).

You may find the lens a bit long for portrait work due to the 1.6x conversion factor of the 300D/20D making it effectively a 160mm lens.

[mdr]

Don't think anyone is knocking the Tamron and Sigma. They are both excellent in their own right and will produce excellent results. The Canon is just in a different league :D. You will only know how much better it is compared to the other two once you've tried it. And if you have, you'll never want to go back to the others.

It's just like L lenses. Always thought 'what is the big deal', as my lenses were giving me fantastic results. Now I've got my first L lens, I know why. Got the L fever :p and now I'm saving up for the next one.

[yellow_belly]

Insects will do a runner as soon as the Sigma's and Tamron's autofocus kicks in, unless they are deaf ;).Must have deaf insects around here then :)

Terry

[ron chappel]

For me the sigma was just too week optically!

My results were similar to this website-
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

Having owned the canon 100 in the past i was very dissapointed .Some say the canon 100 macro is one of the sharpest lenses ever and i tend to agree.
The sigma was no better than the EF 50/1.8 lens. -ok,that's not a bad thing in the grand sceme of things but compared to the awsome canon (and the tamron from what i hear) it's a dissapointment


Apart from the optics,the sigma was quite nice.I had no issues at all with build quality,etc
If fact i thought it a very well made,good looking lens.The colour was possibly abit odd (is it reflecting grey,black or blue?,lol)
The stupid two step dance to get from AF to MF was irritating though

Look- about the image quality issue.....*ALL* macro lenses are sharp,you'll likely love the sigma if you haven't used anything else.
But the canon is such a legend of a lens ,how can one pass it up?;) :D

[DionM]

Ordered my Canon 100 mm today.

:)

Thanks for the replies guys. In the end I thought I'm gonna keep this baby for a while, I don't want any possible hassles of rechipping.

[Arsonist lolol]

I think I'll be going for that now too, thanks Dion for asking this originally haha. Time to take back my +7 filters lol, no need for them anymore. So J Rabin, you say this could be used for some sports too?? I don't know much about focal lengths for sport shooting, but I do know that a fast lens is a must!

[Blackbird]

I've wanted to get a macro lens too. The Canon 100mm sounds like the way to go.

[gramps]

That dragonfly pidcture just sold me ............................ the Canon 100 macro is next on my list.

[J Rabin]

Arsonist et al:
Here is an example of a Canon 100 macro of 100 year-old art deco hatpin head. The owner told me they see more detail here than they ever did with naked eye. And yes, I've used it in a pinch as fast f/stop medium telephoto for sports. Not desireable, but do-able. I have a great shot of olympic cyclists sprinting at a velodrome, but too big to upload.
Enjoy macro world.
J

[J Rabin]

OK, couldn't figure out image upload. This Art Deco Period Beehive hatpin looks crappy grained now, because I had to reduce resolution from 20MB to 100KB. Original object was mabe 2cm diameter. Sorry for the poor jpg conversion, but you get idea of what macro lens will do revealing detail in small objects, whether insects or jewlery.
J