The New Sigma 180mm macro f/2.8 vs. Canon 180mm f/3.5 <moved>

Hi Everyone

I’ve been looking at the new Sigma 180mm ƒ/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro. As you all know it is an update of the previous macro: 180mm ƒ/3.5.
But to achieve maximum sharpness I need to stop down to ƒ/5.6.
I know I can do that with canon 180mm macro f/3.5L.
But I hear the Sigma is much faster than Canon.
I am also wondering how important is the f/2.8 in the Sigma.
Is that worth considering it over the Canon 180mm?

To be honest, with Macro, you typically want to shoot with the aperture stopped down so you can get more DoF. Of course there are exceptions but a 180mm FL at macro distance means RAZOR THIN DoF already. Normally, I shoot at f/6.3 and higher Av with macro, more commonly f/8-f/11. So to me, the diff between f/2.8 and f/3.5 in the macro case is irrelevant.

I'd only care which is sharper and maybe which has a quicker AF (if you even use AF in your Macro, I often do not. I typically set distance and move the camera to get things in focus).

Lenticular wrote in post #16758947
Hi Everyone

I’ve been looking at the new Sigma 180mm ƒ/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro. As you all know it is an update of the previous macro: 180mm ƒ/3.5.
But to achieve maximum sharpness I need to stop down to ƒ/5.6.
I know I can do that with canon 180mm macro f/3.5L.
But I hear the Sigma is much faster than Canon.
I am also wondering how important is the f/2.8 in the Sigma.
Is that worth considering it over the Canon 180mm?

I think you're getting a bit mixed up with your F stops here, both lenses can be stopped down to F5.6 and well beyond. I typically use an F stop range between F11 - F16 for insect macros using flash as the main light source. The faster Sigma F2.8 lens will give you a slightly brighter image in the viewfinder (which is handy) but both lenses will give you super sharp macro shots.

Thank you PKmode and Thank you Worcester Lad.
Truly I appreciate your responds.
I think I will go with Canon.
I hope I get some valuable feedback from all of you when I post some of work later on.
All the best to all.

Before you run out and buy the Canon, which I had and it is NOT optically stellar, consider that the 2.8 is also an advantage as you look through the lens. It will let in almost twice as much light with which to view your subject as the F3.5 Canon. If you are going to use live view all the time, this may not make this much of a difference, but if you like looking through your lens, it will be.

You may also want to take a look at the current Sigma 150 2.8. It has been getting great write-ups, weighs a lot less than the 180 and you aren't giving up that much length. It is also considerably cheaper than either the Canon or Sigma 180

aboudd wrote in post #16871076
Before you run out and buy the Canon, which I had and it is NOT optically stellar, consider that the 2.8 is also an advantage as you look through the lens. It will let in almost twice as much light with which to view your subject as the F3.5 Canon. If you are going to use live view all the time, this may not make this much of a difference, but if you like looking through your lens, it will be.

You may also want to take a look at the current Sigma 150 2.8. It has been getting great write-ups, weighs a lot less than the 180 and you aren't giving up that much length. It is also considerably cheaper than either the Canon or Sigma 180

I would make a caution to the comment about the 180L.

Certainly this lens has a few less than fantastic reviews out there, but I have found my copy is exceptionally sharp, sharper than my 100mm I would say. I am not the only one.

Reviews are all well and good but they are not the real world. In both formal MTF tests and real world use this lens has been very sharp.

In the real world, technique and the actual situation matter more though.

I was put off by those reviews but got the lens anyway based on users on this forum that say their copies are good. I am very glad I did.

I have an older Sigma macro that is awesome BUT hope to one day upgrade to Canon so I can share teleconverters with my Canon lenses.

I would like to add that my Canon 180 macro is one of my sharpest lenses. I think it is also worth mentioning that the Sigma weighs about a pound more then the Canon. I use my 180 almost always on a tripod but if you are thinking of hand holding a lens like this consider the following. Both the Canon and Sigma cause the camera to be front heavy. Add a flash and some sort of bracket and you have allot of weight in front. For normal photography this is unimportant but for Macro where the shooter assumes some very strange positions I found it extremely difficult to hold a rig like that steady