Sigma macro 105

[sagebrush]

I just saw some great shots using 300D with a Sigma 105 f/2.8 EX DG macro. Their 100 bucks less at B&H than Canon's 100 f/2.8 macro, an inch shorter, and weigh a third less. Min focus distance is 12.2" vs 6" with a Canon. Does that mean you have to get 6" closer using a Canon to achieve the same 1:1 magnification?

Does anyone have experience using one?

I have a 20D and Canon all the way.

[Hellashot]

Min focus distance is 12.2" vs 6" with a Canon. Does that mean you have to get 6" closer using a Canon to achieve the same 1:1 magnification?


It should mean that with the Canon you CAN get 6" closer to the object. If you were to go 6" from the object with the other lens you would not be able to focus. Sounds like if you want to save $100 it would be a decent lens, but the Canon would give you more for your money.

[Scottes]

For fixed-length macro lenses the min focus distance is where 1:1 happens. It's physically impossible for two macro lenses of such similar focal lengths to have such different min focus distances if both have a max magnification of 1:1.

6" vs 12" for 100mm vs 105mm - both at 1:1 - doesn't make sense. So, checking both Sigma's page and Canon's page shows that both lenses min focus is approximately 12 inches. B&H's page on the Canon is wrong.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7400
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3291&navigator=5

The Sigma is an excellent lens. I'm very happy with mine, even though it likes to hunt for focus a lot. If I were to buy a 100(ish)mm macro lens again I'd spend the extra $100 for the Canon.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Or look at the new Sigma 150mm (150?) With the HSM motor for faster focus and more working distance,.. but it won't break the bank like the 180mm's do..

[iwatkins]

I have the older 105mm Sigma macro and think it is great, really sharp, but dog slow at focusing.

Might have to take a look at the 150mm :)

As an aside, when I went to look at the Sigma site in the UK, I typed in the URL incorrectly. Instead of typing in http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/ (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com), I typed in http://www.sigma-imaging.co.uk/. What is wrong with this picture ? ;)

Cheers

Ian

[Mogwyth]

As an aside, when I went to look at the Sigma site in the UK, I typed in the URL incorrectly. Instead of typing in http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/ (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com), I typed in http://www.sigma-imaging.co.uk/. What is wrong with this picture ? ;)



I am amazed that Sigma have let them get away with that.

[foxbat]

I own the 105mm. It is very sharp, colour and contrast are faithfully reproduced and is small and light enough to walk around with comfortably. All the negative comments about the AF are, unfortunately, true. It does hunt a lot and is slow and noisy. If the extra $200 for the 150mm HSM doesn't matter to you then I would get it, otherwise you won't be disappointed with the 105mm.

[ScottE]

I have the Sigma 105 macro lens and it is extremely sharp and enjoyable to use.

But, if I was buying again I would have a close look at the Canon. The Canon has a USM AF motor that is faster, quieter and allows full time manual override. The Canon also has an available tripod mount ring that would be very useful for orienting the camera for macro photos.

Note that the price for the Canon 100mm macro lens does not include the lens hood and tripod ring, so they are extra cost. By the time you pay for those the price is about the same as the Sigma 150 macro lens.

Scott

[nitsch]

I also have the Sigma 105mm which I use in conjunction with my 300D. It is the newer DG model, which is supposedly tailored for digital cameras, although I don't know if it is really all that different to the other model to be honest. I agree with all the above comments that it is a truly fantastic lens, but I don't have a problem with the autofocus simply because I don't use it! When doing macro work I always focus manually.

[ron chappel]

I owned one briefly.It is a sharp lens but certainly no better than a normal prime lens at non macro distances (snapshots,portraits,etc).To be honest the sharpness at macro distances wasn't stunning either.
I did a comparison with a EF50/1.8 at equal aperture/cropping and the 50/1.8 was slightly better .
While this sounds good (it is kinda),the fact is that the canon 100 macro is a much sharper lens,one of the best ever made by anyone! :eek: :eek:
I still regret selling my EF100 macro even though i couldn't justify keeping it (never used it):cry:

My experience with the sigma match the results of this test
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html




I'm allways in two minds when recommending macro lenses-on one hand you can get very sharp lenses for a good price (sigma etc)

or...you can spend abit more and get one of the sharpest general purpose/macro lenses ever;)