Finally getting my first dedicated Macro! Now tell me which one?

[Viky]

Hello guys!

All this while, I've been doing my macro shots with the reversed 28 setup or tubes on the 70-300IS.. But, as I'm getting more and more attracted to the world of macro, I've finally decided to get myself a dedicated macro lens

I've pretty much narrowed down to Canon EF100mm f/2.8 USM Macro or the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro.

Both are true IF and ring USM and both are known to be very sharp... the major difference is that the siggy is heavier but I'm getting more working distance(9.6" against 6.3") which allows me the option to use a full set of tubes for 2:1 macro and still get a reasonable working distance. Also, the sigma comes with hood and tripod ring which are optional extras with the canon. The Canon on the other hand is universally tested and accepted and would definitely command a better resale vale.

At BH Photo, the canon 100 is listed at around $450 whereas the Sigma 150 is going for $600+.... that's a substantial difference...BUT, here in India, both are selling very close to each other.. around INR 28k! ($540)

Given this equation, which would you have got? Any other shortcomings or issues with any of these that I need to know before hand?

Thanks..

Viky

[liewwk]

before I got my sigma150, I have same question to me too...

and finally I choose 150 bcoz of the longest and it pair with my MPE which work better as I need longer for some sensitive bug e.g. butterfly, tigerbeetle ...

[racketman]

of those two i'd get the Canon 100mm - I personally found the 150 quite heavy to get sharp hand held images although it is an excellent lens. Also for a given amount of extension tube you will get a bit more magnification with the shorter lens.

[davej1234]

Originally Posted by Viky

Hello guys!

All this while, I've been doing my macro shots with the reversed 28 setup or tubes on the 70-300IS.. But, as I'm getting more and more attracted to the world of macro, I've finally decided to get myself a dedicated macro lens

I've pretty much narrowed down to Canon EF100mm f/2.8 USM Macro or the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro.

Both are true IF and ring USM and both are known to be very sharp... the major difference is that the siggy is heavier but I'm getting more working distance(9.6" against 6.3") which allows me the option to use a full set of tubes for 2:1 macro and still get a reasonable working distance. Also, the sigma comes with hood and tripod ring which are optional extras with the canon. The Canon on the other hand is universally tested and accepted and would definitely command a better resale vale.

At BH Photo, the canon 100 is listed at around $450 whereas the Sigma 150 is going for $600+.... that's a substantial difference...BUT, here in India, both are selling very close to each other.. around INR 28k! ($540)

Given this equation, which would you have got? Any other shortcomings or issues with any of these that I need to know before hand?

Thanks..

Viky

Hi Viky:

Some opinions from a newbie Sigma 150 owner (you've already listed some of them:

pros:
-Excellent image quality, very sharp lens.
-Relatively long minimumum focus distance for a macro lens (15") great for insects.
-Nice as a medium length telephoto
-Adding extension tubes doubles magnification with no loss of image quality

cons:
-A little on the heavy side; working with a shallow Depth of Field typical of macro lenses, this can make handheld shooting a little difficult to manage (I've gotten used to it somewhat)
-Slow Autofocus...at least with my copy, but I (as with most macro shooters, I think) just set lens to MF at 1:1 and move camera into focus.



For reviews and comparisons, check out Digital Picture:

Sigma 150: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Canon 100: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Just my 2 cents worth...good luck

Dave