$300 rebate on Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro w/OS

Should I jump on it. Looking for a macro to do ring shots for a wedding that I have booked in a couple weeks. I can't afford the 100mm L right now so that is out of the question. Or would I be OK with Kenko extension tubes? The sigma would be $669 after instant rebate of $300.

You might consider the 100 mm 2.8 (non-L) it is quite sharp and sells for $549 on Amazon, but no IS. If you go to this link I have set up a sharpness comparison between the Sigma and the 100l, but you can also input the 100 non l macro also. The Sigma holds its own.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

24-105 does 1:4 magnification. You could crop that into some decent ring shots.

I had a chance to test it and it is an excellent lens. Very sharp, the AF is very fast and the IS works like magic. I had 1:4 shots hand-held.

In less than an hour, it netted me 1 12x18 print (out of a set of 4 I show at home, 2 with the EF 24-70 MkII and another one with the nifty).

Extension tubes will get you the focusing distance, will the lens give you the sharpness and the AF/IS?

I had the 100 2.8 macro at one time. For me it was too long on APSc, so I sold it. Now I use the 60 2.8 EFs lens. Anyway....

The Canon 100 2.8 non-L does NOT extend when focusing. Some of the Sigma and other brand macros do extend. Even on a lens that does not extend, you will sometimes get in your own way. I don't understand the logic of a macro lens that is designed to extend while focusing on really close objects. It is something to consider.

Love my 60!

if it's really just ring shots you are after i'd just grab an extension tube set...

Here is a comparison to the Canon EF 100L f2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

It seems to do slightly better than the L wide open. Definitely better than the EF 100 non-L

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Gary, what makes you think that the Sigma 105 extends when focusing? I don't remember it doing it.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16740457
...Gary, what makes you think that the Sigma 105 extends when focusing? I don't remember it doing it.

My bad on the Sigma. I knew some macros extended and spoke (typed) without checking first. One of the Tamron 90mm macros does extend, but that is irrelevant to this thread. Forgive me, please.

Just FYI-

If you're getting it for ring shots you won't be shooting it wide open. Probably closer to f/6.3-f/7.1 to get what you are looking for. This was taken with the much cheaper Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro. I think it was $275 used.

Light your ring shots with cheap LED panels!

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/plain'

MakisM1 wrote in post #16740457
Here is a comparison to the Canon EF 100L f2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

It seems to do slightly better than the L wide open. Definitely better than the EF 100 non-L

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Gary, what makes you think that the Sigma 105 extends when focusing? I don't remember it doing it.

So according to this comparison it is a bargain compared to the 100L and it isn't much more than the standard 100 macro. The extension tubes are $200 and I think I could benefit from a macro in the long run. Thinking I should just pick up the Sigma and be done with it.

Do you need a new lens with stabilization? There are lots of good used macro lenses under $400.

I think you can get the Tamron 90mm without VC/IS for like $399?

D^mn, I just bought one a few weeks ago when I decided that I should explore macro. Plus it's a decent prime to boot.

well, its $499. They have $100 rebates all the time, but it looks like it doesnt apply to the 90mm macro at this time. I got my 90mm VC for $649 ($100 rebate). Fantastic lens

gnome chompski wrote in post #16741813
well, its $499. They have $100 rebates all the time, but it looks like it doesnt apply to the 90mm macro at this time. I got my 90mm VC for $649 ($100 rebate). Fantastic lens

The Tamron 90mm VC is $619 on Amazon right now. According to the-digital-picture it seems the Sigma is sharper all around in several aperatures then the Tamron.