Canon 100 or Sigma 105 EX DG?

[AntonLargiader]

Both are for sale locally. The Sigma is the discontinued EX DG, and the Canon is the regular non-L. Prices seem reasonable (300 for the Sigma, 400 for the Canon).

I could go either way. I like Canon lenses, and I like real USM. The MTF charts look similar with a slight center sharpness advantage to the Canon: http://www.largiader.com/articles/le...1=88&lens2=201

I haven't checked either of them out yet, but will do so in the next day or so. Anything else to think about besides:
Canon: current, tiny bit sharper, has USM w/FTM
Sigma: cheaper, slower focus, lighter

Actually, FTM should be pretty nice to have on a macro lens. Maybe that's the clincher.

[Matthew Patrick]

I'd go for the Canon, I've had both, the FTM was the clincher for me. I kept forgetting to switch the sigma to manual focus and I started to think I should get rid of it before I damaged it. So I sold it and got the Canon.

[AntonLargiader]

I went for the 100 (btw it came with the hood). I figure it would be easier to resell a current Canon lens than a discontinued Sigma lens, if it comes to it. I've barely formed a first impression, but the focusing is wonderfully smooth (and slow, which is probably deliberate).

So, I'll probably be hanging out here in Macro a bit more, now.

[calypsob]

The canon is way sharper and has internal zooming, dont get the sigma.

[AntonLargiader]

My first subject (pulled him off my leg a few hours before I went to meet the seller). EF100 with all three Kenko tubes, f/9, 1/80, ISO 400, 10-second timer, tripod, hotshoe flash with +2 EC.

He's about 3mm across, including legs.
tick.jpg