Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens vs Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens

Not sure if this is the right place for this. Moderators feel free to move.
When looking at these two lenses I see that the Canon offers IS, whereas the Sigma does not. However the Sigma is twice as fast. There are a few other differences. Cost is similar when you add the tripod collar to the Canon. Both have some great reviews; both have a few negative comments. Can anyone with actual experience with these two lenses comment?
Thanks in advance!

The Canon is a STELLAR lens! Don't know much about the Sigma. I used to stay away from 3rd party lenses, but Sigma & Tamron have both stepped their game up since I last owned one. The speed of the lens will only help you if you want to use it for things other than macro, I'm usually between F/11 & F/16. Again, if interested only in macro the IS will be a big help.

One more thing. I usually recommend spending the extra $200 on the "L" version of the 100mm macro. However, for some reason Canon prices have gone crazy over the last few months. The "L" is currently at B&H for $1299, it was $999 seems like forever. I saw it on sale @ B&H about a year ago for $799!!!

The non "L" version price is the same it's been for a long time, $599, less than HALF the cost of the "L".

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=158427

Like pigpen101 I have the Canon 100 f2.8L. As he said, for macro you may never shoot at 2.8 so non issue

If you are shooting in a low light environment that requires f1.4 the IS may make a bigger difference.

One other point: the Canon 100 f2.8L is very light. I see the tripod ring as a waste of money although your setup may require one.

Rod

Thanks folks! I'm still leaning toward the Canon. F/2.8 is still pretty fast and, as @RodS57 mentioned, the light weigt of the Canon would probable make the tripod collar unnecessary. I could really kick myself because several years ago I did something really stupid. I sold my 10D, my Canon 100mm L, and my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L to by a T6i. I can't believe I made such a stupid move! I hated that camera from the day I bought it and soon went to the 80D. I now have a 5D IV and can't believe how great that camera is. Now I have to rebuild my lens collection. I have the 70-300L so I won't really need the 70-200 but I really miss that 100 L.

I bought the 100mm f2.8L Macro a few months ago from Canon as a refurb. Only $799 and indistinguishable from brand new.

Check out their website, I do often for refurb deals:

https://shop.usa.canon​.com …lashes/refurbis​hed-lenses

Dan

I own the Canon 100L and it is my only Canon lens. I also own a Tamron 24-70 G2 and a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and the Canon is the best of the three. It is lighter and sharper than the other two. I cannot think of a reason to have a tripod collar on this lens as it is so light.

I looked at the Sigma and, while it seems to be a great portrait lens, the size alone would have kept me from buying it. The Sigma is more than twice the weight and requires a 105mm filter vs a 67 mm filter for the Canon. The filter size for the 105 is larger than for my 150-600 (95mm)!!

Currently (12/17/2020), the Sigma is $300 more than the Canon at B&H and, as Dan mentioned above, can frequently be had for about $800 refurbished (that is what I paid for mine).

I really like the Sigma line, but in this case, I would not even consider the Sigma. Just my opinion.

Tim

I would agree the tripod collar is not a necessity, I recently got one after going years without. I added a full set of extension tubes & I use the tripod collar to mount my macro flash to.

100L is macro lens. 105 is art lens.

I had 100L for newborn due to reaction on flash. Once kid started to walk lens was sold. It is very good lens for toddlers portraits, but on anyone older it is true macro lens.
I'm kind of missing this lens, it was great for macro of moving insects and for gear for sale photos. Or just for close ups of cute things. 1:1 reproduction lens.

Sigma... I don't want any of those. Bad reputation on AF. Where is old, trusty 135L instead.

kf095 wrote in post #19168085
100L is macro lens. 105 is art lens.

I had 100L for newborn due to reaction on flash. Once kid started to walk lens was sold. It is very good lens for toddlers portraits, but on anyone older it is true macro lens.
I'm kind of missing this lens, it was great for macro of moving insects and for gear for sale photos. Or just for close ups of cute things. 1:1 reproduction lens.

Sigma... I don't want any of those. Bad reputation on AF. Where is old, trusty 135L instead.

I love my 100L for my grandsons (ages 3 months to 4 years), but the focusing speed isn't great at tracking quick movement. The lens is much more than a macro lens, though. In fact, it is a great landscape lens that is extremely sharp and has basically no lens distortion.

Regarding Sigma focusing - the bad AF is gone and the new AF is excellent. Dustin Abbott reviewed the lens and he claims that the AF is as good as or possibly a little better than the Canon 135L. If you are not familiar with Dustin, his gear reviews are really, really good.

Take a look at his review of the Sigma 105 f/1.4 Art lens:
https://www.youtube.co​m …s&ab_channel=Du​stinAbbott
AF discussion begins at about the 9 minute mark of the video.

Tim

To your points above, yes the Canon can be used as other than a macro & was billed as a multi-use lens for portraits. It does have a good length for portraits, but once I saw the results I got with the Canon 85mm F/1.8 the 100mm became a dedicated macro lens.

I know 3rd party lenses have made huge strides lately (especially Sigma), it's the old "once bitten, twice shy" situation for those of us who have tried them in the past. The new Sigmas. especially the Art, are supposed to be incredible. I will probably never know first hand.

If you want to dedicate a rig strictly for macro, I don't think you will go wrong with the Canon. I have gotten wonderful images using the non L & it's currently half the price!

I had zero problems with 100L's AF at any distances for portraits. 100L worked perfectly with AI Servo for tracking of young and quick ladybugs on the ground.
It was superior lens to clunky, outdated Tamron AF 90 2.8 macro lens which I used for different photography as well.

Sigmas are just not my cap of tea for third party lenses. Tamron is my second choice after Canon L series for EF EOS.

The Sigma is an amazing lens, but it's huge and expensive. If macro is not a primary need, and lens stabilization isn't a must, I would recommend the Canon 100mm f2 lens. I have both the f2 and the Macro 2.8. The f2 is a much better portrait lens. When I need close up shots or am shooting indoors where IS is needed, then the macro is great, but for portraits, the f2 version is a better choice.

Canon 100mm f2.8L is my favorite lens. I can’t say I really feel the need for more light with it, especially when shooting macro. The IS is good enough to grab you a stop of light at lest too. You should be aware that it is definitely geared towards macro use, the focus ring rotation is about 120 degrees, with 90 degrees of that for 0.3-0.5 meters focal distance and 30 degrees for 0.5 to infinity.

I am in the other camp. I keep the tripod collar on my 100L f/2.8 Macro all the time. A tripod is super useful for me when I am shooting macro at ankle level, knee level, etc. Also, when the subject is super close to the lens I almost always drift my hold back and forth throwing off the point of focus. This makes the tripod collar/tripod a macro necessity for me. Someone at Canon must think along these lines since they designed the lens the accommodate a collar while many other Canon lenses do not.