Macro - Sigma 105 or Canon 100???

[golden-balls]

Hi Folks
I'm thnking about buying one of these lenses.
Any advice?
Know where I can get it at the best price in UK?
7dayshop Canon £339 - Sigma £249
TIA
GB

[mdr]

Think the Tamron 90mm Macro should be on your list of options as well.

[ron chappel]

The canon 100 macro is absolutally outstanding,a gem of a lens!

I've also used the sigma 105 EX (non DG) lens and must say it's not as good as the canon or tamron. Sure it's sharp compared to zoom lenses but up against the canon looks 2nd rate.


This test shows the same sort of image quality i got from my sigma compared to other macro lenses- http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

I've seen some results from the newer DG model,it apears to have got the improvement it needed to have -
http://www.pbase.com/kazfujieda/lenstest&page=2


And of course there is the tamron 90 macro that marc mentions (now in a new Di version but the old one is great too)
The tamron has quite a reputation going by comments on the net.
See the first link to see how it compares

[psk4363]

I'll second what Ron says. I too have had the Sigma 105 and when I compared it to a friends Canon 100 the results were visually inferior and consequently I sold it and bought the Canon. Not looked back one little bit. The Canon is simply outstanding and, IMHO, deserves a 'L' suffix.

Barry

[tim]

There are many (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=64991&page=1&highlight=macro+sigma+canon+tamron) informative (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=65343&highlight=macro+sigma+canon+tamron) discussions (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59868&highlight=macro+sigma+canon+tamron) (each word links to a different thread) about these three lenses, I found all those with the search feature.

I have the Canon 100mm F2.8, it's an incredibly sharp lens.

[mdr]

In my haste I also forgot to mention the Canon 60mm EF-S 1:1 macro (effectively a 96mm macro lens on 1.6x crop), and for real macro photography, noting beats the Canon MP-65E macro (see http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=46&sort=7&cat=2&page=2) giving you 1x up to a whopping 5x life size in comparison to 1x of the rest.

[fortinaa]

I have the Sigma 105 Macro (EX). I have not used it extensively, since it was picked up right before winter. In test shots, it appears very sharp to me, and is well worth the price you pay for it. I don't think any of the three macro lenses can be called bad optically. My only grip with the Sigma is having to switch the AF/MF switch in addition to sliding the focus ring forward/backward to engage the focusing clutch. I find that the ring gets out of position when getting it in and out of the bag. I don't think Canon or Tamron have a similar mechanism, but you'll also pay more for them. I suppose if I were heavily into macro and knew I was only going to purchase once, I would just get the Canon for a slightly faster AF and high resale value.

[tim]

The Canon doesn't have that problem Aaron, most likely because of the way the USM system works - no gears AFAIK. The Canon makes a great portrait lens too :)

btw you can do great shots with the macro lens indoors, like this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68230) and this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68217). Creative lighting can make the difference between a good photo and a great photo, just play around, and maybe get a lighting book from a local library :)

[fortinaa]

Thanks for the info Tim. I've played with the Sigma indoors and trying to learn some lighting techniques. It's definitely a challenge after shooting mostly sports/nature outside! I have also found the Sigma to be nice for portraits, so long as the subject is within 10ft or so. I also picked up some white foam core board to do some small product type shots for fun. I still have yet to experiment with that some more. For what it's worth to the original poster... If you want to find out how into macro you might be, it isn't a bad idea to pick up a used Sigma for under $250 and be able to re-sell it without much loss if you decide it isn't for you or you want the Canon upgrade. You definitely don't see too many bargains on the Canon/Tamrons.

[Jon]

In my haste I also forgot to mention the Canon 60mm EF-S 1:1 macro (effectively a 96mm macro lens on 1.6x crop), and for real macro photography, noting beats the Canon MP-65E macro (see http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=46&sort=7&cat=2&page=2) giving you 1x up to a whopping 5x life size in comparison to 1x of the rest.
The 60 mm EF-S is a solution looking for a problem. As a macro, it offers virtually nothing that you can't get for the same price or less with the Canon 100 f/2.8 macro or the 50 f/2.5 and converter. The 100 will also give you significantly better working distance, which is important. When you're at macro ranges, the cra^hop factor is utterly irrelevant, but how close you need to jam your lens to the subject really matters.

[Kennymc]

I have the Sigma EX... Not as fast (AF) or as well built as the Canon but it's optically sound...

[Dante King]

I second the vote for the Tamron. Love it. Included lens pouch, hood and 6, yes SIX year warranty. Look at some of the reviews of the tamron 90mm vs the canon and ask yourself if this will work for you. It does for me!

http://www.danteking.com/pics/tammac.jpg
http://www.danteking.com/pics/tammac2.jpg
http://www.danteking.com/pics/tammac3.jpg

[ScottE]

I've had a Sigma 105 mm macro lens for almost seven years and the quality of the images is very good. You do have to watch out of focus highlights because they can form unattractive patterns, but that can be controlled by changing focus, aperture or lighting.

I chose the Sigma over the old Canon 100mm non-USM macro lens because a friend had to send his Canon back to Canon twice to have a defective switch replaced. That was apparently a weakness with the older Canon macro lens. I also chose it over the Tamron 90mm macro lens because of problems I was having with another Tamron lens that were never resolved. I have since bought other Tamron lenses, but wouldn't touch the stuff for a few years.

If I was buying again now I would get the Canon 100mm USM lens or the Sigma 150mm HSM lens because both have full time manual focus override, and a tripod ring (standard on the Sigma and an option expensive on the Canon) Again, Canon is a little agravatiing because they charge extra for a lens hood that is included in the price of most other lenses.

In the seven year I have had the Sigma 105 macro lens it has been back to the Sigma distributor twice for chip upgrades, once when I got my EOS 3 film camera and again when I got the 20D. There was no charge other than the cost of shipping to Sigma. I still like the lens and although either Canon 100 or Sigma 150 macro lens would be better, there has not been enough improvement for me to warrant the cost of upgrading.

Scott

[Loekito]

Hi Folks
I'm thnking about buying one of these lenses.
Any advice?
Know where I can get it at the best price in UK?
7dayshop Canon £339 - Sigma £249
TIA
GB

This is my personal experience...

got sigma 105 before, then sold it, switch to Canon 100.
why? because no IF, no FTM (must switch the AF to MF, then slide the focusing-ring, it's troublesome 2 step action), no USM.
and why canon, IF+FTM+USM and it's guarantee to be compatible with all future canon DSLR models (no re-chip, no Err 99)

but the sigma comes with hood and pouch (which canon didn't) and of course cheaper.
the nice thing, the hood is 58mm (screw it in front of the lens just like filters), so I sold it without the hood :)

regards,

Loekito

[Loekito]

Hi Folks
I'm thnking about buying one of these lenses.
Any advice?
Know where I can get it at the best price in UK?
7dayshop Canon £339 - Sigma £249
TIA
GB

More from my personal experience.. forgot to mention in my previous post.

Mostly, the AF still works even in 1:1 magnification.
Maybe some of the folks here said that they use MF for macro shooting. But I'm not, since i'm wear glasses, my eyes were not perfect anymore, so difficult for me to MF.

I even try to add reversed 50mm lens in front of my Canon 100. and the AF still works nicely.

regards,

Loekito

[golden-balls]

Thx guys & gals

Still no mention of price????

GB

[davidwegs]

I have tried the Canon and found it to be faster to focus although the optics did nothing extra for me.

My sigma gives me nice results for the shots I take with a Macro.