135L OR Sigma 150 Macro IS?

I purchased a Sigma 70 f/2.8 Macro - I like Macro, i've decided, but I would like to get something that could pull a double-duty.

So, since the 135L has legendary awesomeness... and the 150 macro is a macro, and therefore inherently sharp/awesome - but a stop slower (with IS!) I have quite a difficult decision. My current financial situation will not allow me to have both.

What would you do? Anyone have any excellent success using the Sigma 150 Macro OS for things other than macro?

Yes the 150 (I have the non-OS) is great for non-macro stuff, provided you can live with slower focusing. The longer throw of macro simply means it's slower, even with the limiter switch in use. Of course it's a stop slower too, but you can gather that simply from specs.

I wouldn't use the 150 for sports unless it was your only choice, and I'd bet the 135 is much better in low light use for things like concerts etc. The 150 will AF nice and quick in good light between two distances beyond it's limiter minimum (for example between objects at ~3m and ~10m it will be very fast), but if it has to go through the whole focusing range then it could get frustrating.

I have a canon 100 macro (there non-L version) and the 135L. I guess if you shoot a lot of macro you should get a macro lens, but if you want a lens for general use (especially portraits) and only occasional macro I would recommend the 135L. It will do well for things like flowers, animals...

If you want to do macro, I think the choice is clear.

Erik,, where the 135L has the advantage is in low light and moving subjects like street candids.

The 135L focus is lightning fast.

I have both the Canon 135L and Sigma 150 OS. Both are great lens, but a 135L doesn't make a macro and the 150 is not great for portraits or sports.
I don't think a model would love to wait while the 150 goes through the focus cycle when it misses focus.

BaldPhotographer wrote in post #13716431
I have both the Canon 135L and Sigma 150 OS. Both are great lens, but a 135L doesn't make a macro and the 150 is not great for portraits or sports.
I don't think a model would love to wait while the 150 goes through the focus cycle when it misses focus.

Truth...I used to shot portraits with a Sigma 105 macro and the focus was BRUTAL. It would cycle all the time and at least once or twice per session it simply refused to acquire focus at all...I hated that thing (was the client's camera and he insisted we use it, so I couldn't do much about it).

BaldPhotographer wrote in post #13716431
I have both the Canon 135L and Sigma 150 OS. Both are great lens, but a 135L doesn't make a macro and the 150 is not great for portraits or sports.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

I don't think a model would love to wait while the 150 goes through the focus cycle when it misses focus.

Yeah, I've been hearign semi-bad reviews about the lens.
Best to get the 70 then

I've been playing around with the 135mm f/2L and the TS-E 90mm with a full set of Kenko EF-S compatible DG extension tubes (68mm of extension).

The 135mm f/2L gives pretty good working distance with these extension tubes and is easy to use for me, even in bad light. However, I'm not sure of its maximum magnification. It has the advantage of being useful in event photography, as well. The OS of the Sigma ought to be nice, but I am going to wait for the upcoming Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS macro. If I was looking for great macro capability, I would be sure to contemplate the legendary TS-E 90mm macro - you get tilts for product photography, making it extra useful, and its minimum focus distance is much closer. Lighting might be more troublesome, however, and it cannot AF at all.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #13716505
Truth...I used to shot portraits with a Sigma 105 macro and the focus was BRUTAL.

The 105mm non-OS though was not HSM and wouldn't be as fast as the 150mm. The 150mm is surprisingly fast. And for portraits you can MF to close-enough and then left AF finish it thanks to FTM focusing.

I'd be more worried about moving subjects.

One big thing no one has talked about yet - weight. The new Sigma is about 2.5 lbs, so the weight difference would be huge between that and the 135L.

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #13716913
Yeah, I've been hearign semi-bad reviews about the lens.
Best to get the 70 then

You've been reading poor reviews.

The Sigma 150 and 150 OS are fantastic.

135L with Kenko tubes would give the best of both worlds and the ultimate in flexibility

I was debating (a bit) between the 135L and the new 150 Macro OS for indoor sports. I am not currently interested in macro, but the slightly longer focal length and OS of the Sigma was interesting. But for my uses I guess losing a stop of light and some AF speed/accuracy is too much of a tradeoff, plus I prefer a smaller and lighter lens if possible (the 135L).

Thanks for a useful thread.

BaldPhotographer wrote in post #13716431
I have both the Canon 135L and Sigma 150 OS. Both are great lens, but a 135L doesn't make a macro and the 150 is not great for portraits or sports.
I don't think a model would love to wait while the 150 goes through the focus cycle when it misses focus.

There should be no problem using 150mm macro for portraits .It's Af is fast enough and accurate for that .Rarely does it miss focus .