Macro Lens for 5D2

Hello all, I will be getting a 5D2 with my tax return (extremely excited! ) and I'd also like to pick up a macro lens with it. I'm looking at the 100 L and Sigma 150 OS. I currently have a 24-70 L and 300 L. I also have a 50D.

The Canon is cheaper, especially if I buy it with the body. The discount is doubled through early March. The 100mm focal length is probably a little more useful in general. It is also sharper in the center.

The Sigma has a bit longer MFD, less CA in both directions (I hate CA...), and more uniform sharpness throughout the frame, at least on the charts. However, I didn't really find the 100mm focal length useful on a crop body, which is similar to the FOV I would get with the 150 on FF.


The lens will primarily be used for macro, especially nature macro (bugs, plants, etc). Which one of these would you suggest I buy, given my current gear?

Thanks!

I just bought the 100 f/2.8L IS and am returning it. Not because it's a bad lens. It's really nice, but the close-up work I do, I can already do with my 24-70.

I kind of want to keep it since I picked it up for $886 from B&H. But that's ~$900 I can put towards the 24-70 II that I pre-ordered.

I use the Canon 100 on my 5DII, and find it a great lens. Use it for macro and portrait work.

ocabj wrote in post #13875679
I just bought the 100 f/2.8L IS and am returning it. Not because it's a bad lens. It's really nice, but the close-up work I do, I can already do with my 24-70.

I kind of want to keep it since I picked it up for $886 from B&H. But that's ~$900 I can put towards the 24-70 II that I pre-ordered.

But you do realize that the new 24-70L has a maximum magnification of only 0.21 while the older one has 0.29x unless the new version offers corner to corner sharpness across the zoom range and improved bokeh I don't think it is worth the extra grand.

As for a macro lens when it comes to bugs you want to have a lens that offers a long working distance so the 150mm OS should be better for that or you can wait for the recently announced 180mm macro OS

http://www.dpreview.co​m/news/2012/01/10/Sigm​a180Macro

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #13875707
As for a macro lens when it comes to bugs you want to have a lens that offers a long working distance so the 150mm OS should be better for that or you can wait for the recently announced 180mm macro OS

http://www.dpreview.co​m/news/2012/01/10/Sigm​a180Macro

I'd love it except for the fact it is going to be massive. 86mm filter thread. I'm sure it weighs a ton too. I'd like something that I can easily take with me on a hike. The 150mm seems to be about the same weight as my 300. I definitely wouldn't want it much bigger than that.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #13875707
But you do realize that the new 24-70L has a maximum magnification of only 0.21 while the older one has 0.29x unless the new version offers corner to corner sharpness across the zoom range and improved bokeh I don't think it is worth the extra grand.

As for a macro lens when it comes to bugs you want to have a lens that offers a long working distance so the 150mm OS should be better for that or you can wait for the recently announced 180mm macro OS

http://www.dpreview.co​m/news/2012/01/10/Sigm​a180Macro

Without straying too far away from the Macro aspect of the post, I expect the 24-70L II to be a great improvement over the original, and I expect the 24-70 II lens quality to coincide with increased sensor requirements of the next 5D Mark II iteration.

I think a longer focal length Macro would change my mind about owning a Macro lens. Perhaps the reason why I'm not liking the 100 is because from a portrait standpoint, it doesn't offer much more over my 70-200.

ocabj wrote in post #13875788
Without straying too far away from the Macro aspect of the post, I expect the 24-70L II to be a great improvement over the original, and I expect the 24-70 II lens quality to coincide with increased sensor requirements of the next 5D Mark II iteration.

Uh yeah... I have a 24-70 mk 1 and will have a 5D2. I'm not interested in the 24-70 II or 5D3/X.

The 24-70 does alright with a 25mm extension tube, but its still nothing like a dedicated macro lens.

Kiwikat wrote in post #13875841
Uh yeah... I have a 24-70 mk 1 and will have a 5D2. I'm not interested in the 24-70 II or 5D3/X.

The 24-70 does alright with a 25mm extension tube, but its still nothing like a dedicated macro lens.

I'm thinking you should rent the 180 and see how that works for you. Again, the 100 is a fine lens. But I wonder if it's still too short, especially for full frame. Hmmm... maybe I should chuck the 100 on my 7D to see how it looks...

All of you who are voting for the 100L, could you explain your choice? Is there a reason it is getting so many more votes?

Kiwikat wrote in post #13875770
I'd love it except for the fact it is going to be massive. 86mm filter thread. I'm sure it weighs a ton too. I'd like something that I can easily take with me on a hike. The 150mm seems to be about the same weight as my 300. I definitely wouldn't want it much bigger than that.

According to this review the 150mm OS produces almost no CA at all and works with Canon extenders which the 100L does not.
http://www.photozone.d​e …s_ff/667-sigma150f28oseos

Up until now I used the 135L on a crop body for larger insects like dragonflies and katydids simply because the longer focal length and a mfd of 3ft but I do hope to be able to get a 150mm or 180mm macro lens later this year. I have also tried with the 24-70L on a 50D but it is just not long enough and often scare the bugs away. So unless you are willing to set up a tripod and wait for like an hour for some bug to come near your camera the 100mm macro is simply not long enough for shooting some insects especially on a FF.

Kiwikat wrote in post #13875869
All of you who are voting for the 100L, could you explain your choice? Is there a reason it is getting so many more votes?

lol it's probably because it is an L lens
and I am sure most of them don't even shoot bugs out in the wild with that lens

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #13875885
So unless you are willing to set up a tripod and wait for like an hour for some bug to come near your camera the 100mm macro is simply not long enough for shooting some insects especially on a FF.

This is true. I was playing around with the 100 on my 5D Mark II last Fri at work, and I was really close to a bee with it. I was actually surprised how close I was to it to even attempt to fill the frame. I had to take the hood off just to not cast a shadow on it (using natural light).

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #13875897
lol it's probably because it is an L lens

That's sort of what I was thinking, though I didn't want to say it out loud.

I've got nothing against Sigma lenses, having owned 2 of them in the past. They had great build and image quality. I'm just wondering if the versatility of 100mm on FF would be worth more than the increased MFD and less CA.

Kiwikat wrote in post #13875942
That's sort of what I was thinking, though I didn't want to say it out loud.

I've got nothing against Sigma lenses, having owned 2 of them in the past. They had great build and image quality. I'm just wondering if the versatility of 100mm on FF would be worth more than the increased MFD and less CA.

Well I am not a fan of Sigma lenses, far from it. I mean my 10-20mm f4-5.6 is defective even after I sent it for calibration but it is hard to deny that Sigma also offers lenses that Canon does not like the 12-24mm for FF and the image stabilized telephoto macro lenses that got some really good reviews. I mean even the guy on the Digital Picture praised the older non OS 150mm macro in his review and that guy is a known L lens fan.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Kiwikat wrote in post #13875590
The lens will primarily be used for macro, especially nature macro (bugs, plants, etc). Which one of these would you suggest I buy, given my current gear?

Well if that's what you are really going to use a macro lens for then the 100L is less versatile than the Sigma 150 OS and if you want something wider for plants then you can just use the 24-70L.

100L - I have one, I use it 'out in the wild', I love it. For stopped down work, I think the 100 is an easier focal length to manage, esp. on 5D2 where you have plenty of cropping leeway. I wouldn't mind adding a 180 OS to my collection, but I don't think I'd give up my 100L for it.