Macro sigma 150? Sigma 180? Canon 100? Which one?

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

So I'm looking into macro lenses, and noticed how many options there are out there. I was originally set on the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, but then I found the sigma 150 and 180mm macro's.

So now I'm curious. What are the advantages, disadvantages of each lens? Which is the sharpest ect.

Thanks

[condyk]

I doubt anyone has experience of them all so we'll probably just get 'I have the 100mm and I love it' style posts which don't really answer the question. I think they are all awesome options based on the reviews and user experience reports and so just buy on price. You'll be happy.

I wonder if you could use your proposed 400mm f5.6 L with a Macro tube :lol: :lol:

[jfred]

the 150mm sigma has a closest focussing distance of 38cm, for the 180mm it's 46cm, and the canon 100 - it's about 31 cm

so I guess how near you need to be for 1:1 shots differs between the lenses. It's really plucking at factors to differentiate the lenses here - I'm sure they are all superb.

Whatever you decide to go for - enjoy!

[GyRob]

i had these thoughts and am going the sigma 150mm way for the extra working distance as that may help with shy insects.
Rob.

[Miranda1]

I was recently in the same position, I had to choose between the Canon 100 macro, the 180L macro or the sigma 150 EX. In the end I choose the sigma 150 and I must say I am very pleased with the output of this lens. The Canon 100 was o.k but the fact that it didn't include a collar or a lens hood was a problem, the build quality was o.k but I guess I have been spoiled by the feel of my L collection and it never really felt as solid. The 180L was an amazing lens but I had to justify the price and also the size, it's a large optic and didn't balance well in my hands. The sigma is my first non Canon lens so I was a little concerned about the overall quality of this optic. Optical quality out of this thing is really very impressive, almost as good as my 135L. I'm not to thrilled with the exterior finish of these sigma lens, it feels a little strange with a velvety type feel to them. The build quality is however very good. The tripod collar is excellent and the fact that it includes a lens hood is a plus.

[Pb2Au]

So I'm looking into macro lenses, and noticed how many options there are out there. I was originally set on the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, but then I found the sigma 150 and 180mm macro's.

So now I'm curious. What are the advantages, disadvantages of each lens? Which is the sharpest ect.

Thanks
I had the 100 macro and found that I had to get to the minimum focusing distance to get any real decent macro. I have no ide how people pull off shots like a single blade of grass, with one water droplet hanging from it, showing the reflections of several nearby flowers, without more reach... I am always completely amazed when I see "equipment used 100 f/2.8 macro". I just sold the 100, and plan to use extension tubes with my 70-200 f2.8 and 100-400L for some real reach and flexability. I say go for the 150 or 180, but it depends on what you're shooting. Canon has one that does like a 5:1 super super super macro... that one might be neat.

Also, be ready with a flash, off camera cord, tripod, BG/reflector and 3rd or 4th hand. Macro was a pain for me... gimme tele. :)

Justin

[xuxu1]

I´m a "go Canon" person (for me) even though i am aware of the fact that there are lots of very nice and good third party lenses out there.

Concerning Macro photography... that is the first time i would leave the Canon path and go for the Sigma 150mm Macro. Heard a lot of good things about that one. And there are others here that may do the same step.

I think CDS wrote some time ago (he has the Canon 100mm Macro if i remember correct) he would go for the Sigma now if he had the choice of picking one.

ED

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thanks for all the great help guys! Seems like a lot of people like the sigma 150mm. Looks like a nice lens. I'd hate to leave canon though. :( But I think it'll be worth the working distance.

Pb2Au, I'm pretty sure your talking about the MP-E 65mm macro with the 1:1 to 5:1 magnification. I was looking at that thing and it looks sweet, but it's 800 bucks and is MF only. :( also I've heard it's prett hard to use. The way it zooms is a lil freaky too.... both ends extend and stuff. You can get magnification far more than 5:1 using reversed lenses and stuff. I've seen people using 100mm f/2.8 macro's with reversed 50mm f/1.8's attatched to get awesome results. They can fill the frame with an ant, it's crazy! You can get even more magnification with a reversed wide angle lens at 17, 16, 10mm. It's amazing stuff! Although, I wouldn't use such expensive lenses for such a thing. 50mm f/1.8 is worth the risk, but not lenses over 700 bucks. :)

Anyway, would using a 70-200 lens and a bunch of extension tubes really work? That'd be cheaper...

Condyk; "I wonder if you could use your proposed 400mm f5.6 L with a Macro tube"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I detect some sarcasm in that statement... and I don't apprechiate it...:confused: A few weeks ago I researched telephoto lenses because I do intend on purchasing one in the future. (1yr or so away) just as I intend on purchasing a macro lens in the future (also 1yr-1 1/2yr away). I didn't say in this thread that I was going to go out and by one tomorrow or anything. I'm simply "looking into" them as I said... Excuse me for planning ahead...:confused:

[CyberDyneSystems]

I got the Canon 100mm .. just before the Sigma 150mm was announced..

I think I'd prefer the extra working distance of the 150mm ..

[condyk]

Condyk; "I wonder if you could use your proposed 400mm f5.6 L with a Macro tube" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I detect some sarcasm in that statement... and I don't apprechiate it...:confused: A few weeks ago I researched telephoto lenses because I do intend on purchasing one in the future. (1yr or so away) just as I intend on purchasing a macro lens in the future (also 1yr-1 1/2yr away). I didn't say in this thread that I was going to go out and by one tomorrow or anything. I'm simply "looking into" them as I said... Excuse me for planning ahead...:confused:

I correct you :lol: Honestly, it was a semi-serious idea ... but also very funny to think about it being possible.

Anyone know if it is and what the results would be?

Insects are destined to take over the world at some point anyway ... maybe this is the opening they're looking for :lol: :lol:

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, and with extension tubes I'm betting you'd have to be right in the face of the bug with the 100mm canon. Probably wouldn't work to well. Seems like the 150 sigma would be the better buy. Has a tripod collar, extra working distance, same f/2.8 apeture, it's sharp from what I've heard. Sounds good. I'm curious though, if I were to purchase one of these two macro's it would probably end up being my only f/2.8 lens and I would like to use it indoors for various things... I had the 100mm canon for a few days when I first got my cam and noticed it hunted a lot in low light. (returned it to purchase 70-200 f/4L) I've heard other people say they have the same problem. Is also true with the Sigma 150 f/2.8?

Also, found this thread and thought it was wicked cool. :-) http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/237582/0

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I correct you :lol: Honestly, it was a semi-serious idea ... but also very funny to think about it being possible.

Anyone know if it is and what the results would be?

Insects are destined to take over the world at some point anyway ... maybe this is the opening they're looking for :lol: :lol:

Alright, then I apologize condyk. I guess this was just a misunderstanding.:o

That is a cool idea.... it should work right?:lol: Since extension tubes don't degrade image quality or anything you could add a whole bunch of em to get a close enough focusing distance. But then again, don't they still eat up light?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Extension tubes are great with any telephoto.. bird photogs use them all the time to get closer to the subject and fill the frame.. the 400mm prime has a very long minimum focus distance.. so it is a particularly good ens to use a tube with for this reason.

[Headcase650]

Heres another bonus for the sigma 150 macro. It will take the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, so in all reality you can get more than 1-1 out of this lens.

[foxbat]

All the dedicated macro lenses are extremely sharp (see www.photodo.com (http://www.photodo.com/)). I have the Sigma 105, if I were buying today I would buy the 150 for the extra working distance, it looks superb. AF is irrelevant to macro for me as I do all macro photography as MF by presetting the magnification ratio/aperture/flash I want then moving myself back/forward to get the right focus.

I note that you already have a 70-200 f/4. The sigma 150 and a set of extension tubes will give you a lot of options... greater than 1:1 on the macro with the tubes or a very long reach and about 1:15 on the 70-200 with the tubes.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Heres another bonus for the sigma 150 macro. It will take the 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, so in all reality you can get more than 1-1 out of this lens.

T-cons would give me better magnification? Wouldn't it be better just to use an extension tube?


And about extension tubes, which ones work best with the sigma 150mm, and what size would you recommend? I notice their are two sizes just like the 1.4x and 2x t-cons. I'm curious if the larger one is over kill or something.

[xuxu1]

I got the Canon 100mm .. just before the Sigma 150mm was announced..

I think I'd prefer the extra working distance of the 150mm ..
I knew i was right.

ED

[GeForceFX]

I have the sigma 150, and I'm verry happy with it.
It's my first non-canon lens, but it is really good

here some pics with the lens:
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82997
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82885

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Wow, great shots GeForce! This lens seems perfect!! Do canon extension tubes work with this lens though?

[ghocking]

I have the Sigma 180 and love the results and the quality, bought the EF-S 60 first for macros, but getting close to insects was gard, with the 180 I can standback or get close. My first non Canon lens and very impressed

[Erkki]

All my important objectives are made by Canon. I had ealier some other equipments also. No good fotos, if you need very good ones.

[jforget1]

I am also looking for a macro lens and am leaning towards either the Sigma 105 or the 150. I am wondering if there is a big enough difference between the two lenses to justify the extra $200.
Any comments?