Confused @ the differences in these two...

[LowSpark420]

B&H Photo Website

Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens

$639.95


Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens

$1,049.00


When you all are talking about the Canon 100mm Macro Lens, which one are you referring too?

What are the differences between these two to cause such a high price swing. I really want to get into Macro but could only afford the first lens at this point and time.

[Karl Johnston]

#2 has IS and is an "L"

and the other one should be an L but doesn't come with the L symbol and has no IS though its a great lens and sharper than the 70-200 2.8L in my experience.

IS makes the difference for shooting handheld an at slow shutter speeds, though most times macro shooters tend to use tripods anyway.

[LowSpark420]

Hmmmmm...just such a major difference in the price of the two. So can you not shoot with the #1 lens handheld at all? Or only during the day, outside with a higher shutter speed?

[Bob_A]

Hmmmmm...just such a major difference in the price of the two. So can you not shoot with the #1 lens handheld at all? Or only during the day, outside with a higher shutter speed?

The rule of thumb is to use at least 1/(focal length x crop) for your shutterspeed. Really steady shooters can get away with slower ss and those of us that consume too much coffee may need faster.

So, with a crop camera you'll be pretty good with 1/160s ss for a 100mm lens. With the IS lens you'll be able to get away with 1/20 to 1/40s. Keep in mind though that IS doesn't help freeze a subject that moves, it just helps reduce blur from camera shake :)

[LowSpark420]

I hear ya, so if you are wanting the crisp, still shots, you are going to be using a faster shutter speed anyway...so less need for IS

[LowSpark420]

Ok...what about this lens

Sigma Telephoto 150mm f/2.8

If you had the choice would you buy the less expensive Canon 100mm or the Sigma 150mm?

[Dalantech]

I'm not a big fan of the 1/focal length rule, even modified for a crop sensor, when it comes to actually shooting at life size. Maybe a little too far of topic for this thread, but movement as little as the width of half a pixel during the exposure can mimic the image softening effects of diffraction. The 1/focal length rule is great -if you're shooting a scenic where a single pixel on the sensor might represent several square meters of the scene. But at life size a single pixel represents fractions of a millimeter and the math for hand holding a lens breaks down.

The vast majority of the sharp hand held macro images that you see on the web are sharp because the flash froze the motion in the scene...

[yvonchap]

The rule of thumb is to use at least 1/(focal length x crop) for your shutterspeed. Really steady shooters can get away with slower ss and those of us that consume too much coffee may need faster.

So, with a crop camera you'll be pretty good with 1/160s ss for a 100mm lens. With the IS lens you'll be able to get away with 1/20 to 1/40s. Keep in mind though that IS doesn't help freeze a subject that moves, it just helps reduce blur from camera shake :)

Thanks to answer a question in such a simple way . I asked before but I did not get a answer I could understand fuly.

[Bob_A]

I'm not a big fan of the 1/focal length rule, even modified for a crop sensor, when it comes to actually shooting at life size. Maybe a little too far of topic for this thread, but movement as little as the width of half a pixel during the exposure can mimic the image softening effects of diffraction. The 1/focal length rule is great -if you're shooting a scenic where a single pixel on the sensor might represent several square meters of the scene. But at life size a single pixel represents fractions of a millimeter and the math for hand holding a lens breaks down.

The vast majority of the sharp hand held macro images that you see on the web are sharp because the flash froze the motion in the scene...

As you stated a lot of the sharp macro images are the result of using flash and as Karl stated lots use a tripod so IS isn't needed for macro anyway. For non-macro shots I just wanted to give the OP an idea as to the slowest ss he will likely be able to get away with handheld and the improvement you get with IS (2-3 stops). I am a fan of the 1/(FL x crop) guideline as a good starting point for non-macro shooting until the user gets a feel of his/her limitations. Rules of thumb are guidelines not absolutes.

[Dalantech]

Rules of thumb are guidelines not absolutes.

Agreed 8)

[LowSpark420]

There is a shop here in Atlanta where you can rent equipment. I am about to pull the trigger on the Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS for a 7 day rental over the Thanksgiving holiday.

I figure I can play around with Macro shots of Thanksgiving Dinner! ;) haha

The only downside to this rental is I don't have a flash yet other than the one on my camera body, getting the 430 for x-mas...so I will have to figure out how to best do the lighting in other ways.

[JeffreyG]

Ok...what about this lens

Sigma Telephoto 150mm f/2.8

If you had the choice would you buy the less expensive Canon 100mm or the Sigma 150mm?

There is a lot going on here.

IMO as nice as the new Canon 100mm L macro is, do not overestimate the value of IS in a macro lens. One of the biggest challenges in macro is managing the shallow DOF, and the IS on this macro cannot help at all if the camera is swaying forward and back which is critical in macro photography.

Second, macro lenses are one of the best places to look at 3rd party lenses if you are on a tight budget. Lenses like the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 150 are really excellent alternatives to the Canon 100/2.8 and 180L macro for a lot less money. Optically they give up nothing.

[LowSpark420]

Hmm...food for thought for sure! I would love to be able to shave some more $$$ off the cost of this lens as my wife (who doesn't understand how a lens could cost that much yet will spend $300 on a dress...haha) doesn't want to spend $650 on a lens for x-mas.

Do you think I am being smart to rent the Canon lens as a "test" to see if I even have the "bug" to do more macro work? I just figured why not spend $50 and rent the lens for a week versus spending $650 and then finding out I am not digging Macro (which I highly doubt will be the case)

I don't think they have the Sigma 105mm Macro for rent.

[LowSpark420]

I just checked on B&H and both "non-imported" models mentioned above have a $160 price swing, which is significant.

So I hear you that optically you don't give anything up going to a Sigma...what do you give up? Anything on the AF or durability? Weight or handling?

I also am still planning to get the Kenko extension tubes. I assume I would still want these even if I got one of the above lens to have other "macro gadgets"?

[JeffreyG]

Buy used and if you don't shoot macro you can sell used for little more of a loss than the shipping and Paypal fees.

[LowSpark420]

You have a ton of good advice to chew on, thanks!

One other question on the Canon and Sigma discussed above. Do they both have close to the same amount of working space between subject and lens?

I guess because they both have the same range or right at it with 100mm and 105mm the working distance WILL be the same, correct?

[Warl0rd]

wrong, the sigma 105 (and many other 3rd party) extends at 1:1 so you actually get less working distance then the canon.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens WD: 6.0" (150mm)
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens WD: 4.8" (122mm)

you can compare them here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx)

[LordV]

wrong, the sigma 105 (and many other 3rd party) extends at 1:1 so you actually get less working distance then the canon.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens WD: 6.0" (150mm)
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens WD: 4.8" (122mm)

you can compare them here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx)

The minimum focus distance of these 2 lenses from the film plane is nearly the same at around 30 to 31 cms. The slight difference in working distance in front of the lens is down to the sigma having a recessed front element unlike the canon. Nothing really to do with the sigma extending as it focuses. Stick a lens hood on the canon and the working distance would be worse.

Brian v.

[Warl0rd]

I'm confused...

Isn't the working distance the distance between the front of the lens and the subject? because that's what matters in the field.

If those numbers are the distance between the element and the subject then the working distance of the sigma should be higher then the canon (which isn't recessed).

Anyway, either the source numbers are wrong, or the canon has more working distance no matter how you measure it:

if those numbers represent the distance between the element and the subject then canon has WAY more Working Distance because you still have to subtract the recessed element distance from the sigma.
if those numbers represent the distance between the front element of the lens and the subject then canon has more Working Distance.

[LowSpark420]

It's a tough decision for me given the price swings and my newbie status as I have never done Macro work, but the results of the macro photography really appeal and interest me.

[marcoj70]

I just checked on B&H and both "non-imported" models mentioned above have a $160 price swing, which is significant.

So I hear you that optically you don't give anything up going to a Sigma...what do you give up? Anything on the AF or durability? Weight or handling?

I also am still planning to get the Kenko extension tubes. I assume I would still want these even if I got one of the above lens to have other "macro gadgets"?

I just bought the Sigma 150 a month ago, and it was my first non Canon L lenses; I can't compare it to the Canon 100 (with or without IS) but by itself is a VERY good lenses and VERY sharp (much more than any zoom you could own, even L ones). The feeling holding the lens is different from Canons (focus ring is a little harder, even if still very smooth and precise, the various switches feel different) and of course the finish is very different to the touch. It looks very solidly built, so no complains there either.
One thing you have to consider is the focal lenght: longer lenses (150 or 180) give you more distance from the end of the lenses to the subject, which can be very useful if you're intrested in shooting bugs without scareing them away. On the other hand, since you're further away, is more difficoult to hold the camera still.
You will really need either an external flash or a sturdy tripod with any macro lenses anyway.
One thing that tipped my decision toward the Sigma 150 was the fact that it has a tripod collar: I attach my flash there (through an L-shaped metal thingie used to hold chairs legs in place) with a cord, so I can have the flash right at the end of the lenses at 45°. The (non IS) Canon 100 plus the collar was costing actually more than the Sigma.
With the flash I can shoot hand-held with no fear of shaking the picture. Focusing is actually the most difficult thing, since DOF is only about 1 or 2 millimeters.

Autofocus: the autofocus on the Sigma 150 is much slower than what I have on my Canon 24-105L. Probably the Canon 100 is somewere in-between: Sigma autofocus is known of not being very fast, but every macro lens autofocus will be slower than AF on a normal lens: simply the distance from MFD (Minimum focusing distance) to infinity is much larger on macro lenses. Said this, I never use AF for macro anyway: you just better off setting a rough focus manually and then move back and forward with your body while looking into the eyepiece. But if you plan to use your macro lenses also for portraits, then AF speed comes into play. Just don't plan to use it for sports or fast moving subjects, because there any macro AF would be too slow!

Kenko rings: I own them and have used them for 1 year before buying the Sigma 150:
they are really useful, at least to start shooting macro, and attached to my Sigma I can reach about 2:1 magnification, but then foucsing becomes REALLY challenging! (and still no shakes)
Still I have to say that a macro lens gives much better results than a zoom (even an L one) with the rings attached. A prime is always a prime!

BTW, I bought my Sigma 150 used at 60% of the price, but I did check it thoroughly when I bought it! If you buy used, you have to make sure you get a lens in good conditions and without defects.