Upgrade macro lens

I have posted this on other websites, but i have no clear answer. Hope you guys can give me some more advice.

What is the problem with the Sigma 180 macro lens? It is a highly rated and respected macro lens and I know a lot of people are buying them for macro photography. What exactly would the canon 180 give you that the sigma 180 would not?

I dont know what the Canon would give you that the Sigma 180 will not. I really like the Canon 180 but I did not try the Sigma before buying. My own bias would lean me toward option 4. I did not encounter too many situations where 24mm was not wide enough for my XT (1.6X crop).

From pictures i've seen on pbase, i find the Canon sharper and has more Canon colours in it. I'm happy with the Sigma but the Canon is a bit of a dream lens. I would love to have a Canon setup and that why i'm thinking about it. For now, i'm thinking a used Canon180.

I would say you will not be disappointed with the Canon 180L. Have you found a used one? Its sometimes hard to even find a new one for sale. I bet you would really have to look hard to find one used....

I have a Canon Macro 180L and it is a stunning lens - it is extremely, and I mean extremely, sharp.

If I already had a Sigma 180 though I doubt I would bother changing unless I was really unhappy with it. I haven't, however, used the Sigma so can't comment.

I am sure you would not be disappointed with the Canon 180 - just continue thinking carefully how you may fund it.....

Well to fund it, i would search for a used one, IF i can find one. Another option, is to let the 24-105 go and buy a rail and twin flash. I've had a 70-200f4, and i never used it. So i don't know if i would use the range of the 24-105. It is a big gap but i have this gap right now and don't miss it. And because i use the macro lens so often, i don't think i would regret putting a bit more money into the Canon180 (second hand that is)

I've got a email back from my supplier and he says it's going to be difficult to get a second hand Canon180. There aren't many second hand Canon to buy(in belgium) so i think i'm going to proceed with the Sigma. I've ask this on several forums and the all say that the difference between the two is zero and "Are you unhappy with the Sigma?" and the answer is No.
So i'm now thinking on what to buy?????
24-105 (great for general pics)
Twin flash(but i don't miss it now)
Canon100macro (for a light macro solution)
Rail (but that doesn't cost that much)

The SIGMA is a well respected lens so I am not sure it is worth changing. The Canon 180 has the best MTF data of the Canon Macro lenses (excluding the MP-E) but some claim it does not live up to that expectation.

Myself I have the 100/2.8 Macro which is very sharp and good for general photography also.

I would recommend considering the flash, I don't have one yet but have managed using the 20D internal flash (yes this works with the 100mm). I have taken some nice ambient light shots of insects at life size but to get realy sharp images and max DOF you need flash. I hate flash in most other situations, but for macro on live subjects it is a major advantage. If you are limited to larger subjects like bigger flowers and butterflies this may not be an issue.

I am hoping to get the MT-24 and MP-E shortly. I would say the flash is almost maditory for the MP-E.

If some claim the Canon 180 does not live up to expectations all I can say is that it not only lived up to my expectations of it but exceeded them! And I require a very high standard from my lenses .....

I also have the Canon 100mm Macro and the Canon 180 is noticeably better than that lens which in itself is very, very good. The 180 has simply stunning contrast and sharpness - it just weighs alot and is slow to focus (though on a macro lens this is less of an issue as most adjustments will probably be in manual).

I have the ringflash MT-24 and would also recommend that with the 180 .... just remember you need an adapter ring as the MT-24 is designed for the diameter of the 100mm Macro. The MT-24 add more variation and options ..... but obviously added costs.

Thinking about it all day,
24-105 : think it would be great. But now i'm thinking, am i going to use the 17-40 than?
Twin flash : nice don't need it
Canon100macro : I will never used it next to my 180

I am glad to hear that John, the MTF data suggest the 180 should be sharper than the 100 but you never know how relevant that is for 1:1. There was a German web page with life size test shots that compared almost all the macro lenses available in EF fit that should the 180 in a good light also. Unfortunatly it is no longer available.

I wouldn't mind getting the 180 one day, but I already have the 200/2.8 so not right away.

Can I ask if you can hand hold the 180, I find the 100 is very handholdable even at 1:1?

What about insects in undegrowth. It seemed to me too much working distance may be problematic in that situation?