Please help me choose my macro lens!

Hi all I am torn between the canon 100mm L IS macro and the sigma 105mm EX HSM OS macro lenses. Can anyone please help from what I can see from online reviews there is not alot in it but the sigma is so much cheaper, am I missing something?
Cheers all

Unless you need IS/OS, take a look at a used copy of the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro (non L). It's super sharp, delivers great bokeh and will be cheaper even than the Sigma.

If you wish to save money, the Sigma compares very favorably to the Canon "L".
As paulkaye mentioned, to save a bit more, go with the Canon non-L, non-IS. It does just as good.
(Have both)

Like already said, the EF 100mm f/2.8 (non IS) is an excellent lens and IMO it is just as sharp as the L. Look at the used market for some incredible deals.

Also welcome to POTN

As mentioned above, if non IS is not an issue, then get Canon 100mm. Keeps an eye out for a cheap one here.

http://shop.usa.canon.​com …uct_10051_10051​_269452_-1

Third party lenses are almost always cheaper than the Canon brand of the "equivalent" lens. These two lenses are just about the same price. (The Sigma Less than $100 cheaper when no sale and with the current sales only $160 cheaper.)

Build quality is often not as good as the Canon counterpart. I've heard this lens is built well though - but have not used it.

I don't think the Sigma is weather sealed, the Canon is.

Canon can take a tripod collar and the Sigma can not.

Generally Canon has better quality control.

Note: IS/OS is great for non-macro work. I imagine it could be some (but less) in macro work. Canon has a hybrid IS (possibly more effective with macro work), Sigma has regular OS.

Most macros including off brands are excellent IQ-wise.

Off brands often lose more resale value than the equivalent Canon.

Because of the resale value, the small price differential, and no tripod collar ability - if I was going to upgrade, I'd probably go Canon. Though - If I could save $400, I'd probably go Sigma.

The Hybrid IS in the 100L is fantastic... I shoot macros and dont use a tripod (And only occasionally use flash) and the Hybrid IS does a fantastic job...Well worth the extra $$ to me

Between the Sigma and the Canon, well.. I own the Canon so..

KenjiS wrote in post #15047062
The Hybrid IS in the 100L is fantastic... I shoot macros and dont use a tripod.... Well worth the extra $$ to me

ditto

I was asking the same questions recently, trying to decide for myself, and... my Canon 100L was delivered yesterday! I played around with it last night shooting coins, and it was fantastic. I can hardly wait to get it outside and really put it to use. If you are serious about getting a 100L, there's a $120 Canon instant rebate promotion going on right now, but I think it only runs until 9/29 (better dbl ck that date). -rick

I've never used the Sigma, but keep in mind that it extends nearly 2" when focusing. That can be a nuisance when working at extremely close distances with things that want to escape (bugs). All of the canon lenses are internally focusing and don't extend.

One of my two macro lenses is the Canon 100L, and I agree with the others that it is a fabulous lens. However, it is not clear to me that it is necessarily worth the $$ compared to the far cheaper non-L. Optically, all the credible reviews show them to be quite close in quality. The hybrid IS in the L is handy. (Regular IS is pretty nearly useless at macro distances.) However, its effect is much less than IS at longer distances. Canon advertises 2 stops, I think, but in my experience, I seem to be getting about 1.5 stops. That can be very handy in handheld work, because hand motion is a real problem in macro work. On the other hand, if you are using a diffused flash (which is how a log of bug work is done) or a tripod, the IS is not necessary. So depending on what you shoot, it may or may not be worth the $$ for you. I do some handheld work without flash, so I decided to splurge.

^- Paddler, he's talking about the new Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS EX HSM not the older one, THe new one is a completely inner focusing design....

If the difference in $ is not too much, go with the canon 100L. Rated as one of the sharpest lenses around. I should know, I own one! I love mine! To me the extra $ for IS was well worth it, as it also makes a great portrait lens.

Like everyone stated above, the 100mm non L will do just fine. I had it for three years, and I enjoyed it to the fullest. Now I'm on the L side, and to be honest, the differences aint that big as far as I've seen. The IS works like a charm though.

The canon 100 L and non-L have almost the same quality optins. The L has the IS and weather sealing, and the non-L has none of those

The sigma one is built very differently.
It extends as you focus which isn't very comforable when shooting close to your subjects, it doesn't have weather sealing, it weight a bit more than the L and non-L.
So this is mainly with it cost less than the L and a bit more than the non-L.

If you don't mind the extending part and weather sealing, get it. Its just as sharp, has the OS, and well built. I wanted to raid protection, because I sometimes shoot in light rain, so I got the L. If you want to same money and also don't need the OS/IS, get the non-L.

Look for the L vs Non-L review of the digitTV on youtube. It has good information there (and its decently amusing).

AGAIN The sigma he's talking about is THIS one:

http://www.photozone.d​e …ff/743-sigma105f28oseosff

Which is inner focusing and has a ring-type HSM and OS just like the Canon... in fact according to photozone's conclusion its actually a little better than the 100L...

So when we're discussing them, Please make sure you're talking about the RIGHT lens