The 100mm macro choices..

I been debating which 100mm macro lens to get, And my two choices are miles apart. The Sigma 105mm macro and the Canon 100L. I know with the canon I will have very good AF even when extension tubes. I have noticed that on some 3rd party lenses, it does tend to hunt a lot more with tubes. Manual focus lenses for me at this point are not something I am looking at since later on, maybe 2022 I will get a MP-E 65mm. At the moment I am leaning towards the 100L. I have owned Sigma lenses before and they were always real good for me.

May I ask why 100 mm?

Personally I would go for the 180 Macro (actually, I did), as I think it perfoorms better in less contrasty and/or darker situations, and there are alternatives for macro as well. I really like the 135L with extension tubes and 100-400L with the Canon 500D achromat for macro as well.

If you are not too bothered about MF, you could also consider the TS-E 90L or the TS-E 135L ....

I also believe, BTW, that Macro is an MF game, not AF, unless you stick to close-ups rather than true Macro. Even foor close-ups AF is debatable, IMO.

The MP-E 65 truly is a one of a kind lens....

Kind regards, Wim

Macro is just going to be something fun for me to do. I also need his lens choice to be good for product shots for an online store. Full-time MF is really not something I can do with bugs. My vision is not good and if I am shooting something static and can take my time to nail focus I am good. But a moving bug is going to be a lot harder for me to hit the focus on by hand. For whatever reason, I thought Canon stopped making their 180L, which was why I did not even consider it.

What anout on the used market a Sigma 150 or 180 macro?

EdATX wrote in post #19266740
I been debating which 100mm macro lens to get, And my two choices are miles apart. The Sigma 105mm macro and the Canon 100L. I know with the canon I will have very good AF even when extension tubes. I have noticed that on some 3rd party lenses, it does tend to hunt a lot more with tubes. Manual focus lenses for me at this point are not something I am looking at since later on, maybe 2022 I will get a MP-E 65mm. At the moment I am leaning towards the 100L. I have owned Sigma lenses before and they were always real good for me.

I bought the Canon 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS ten years ago. Performing as well today as it did when I purchased for a Macro Class. Beautiful, crisp, nice color and don’t forget about the Image Stabilization. Also a great Portrait lens as well.

Nick5 wrote in post #19267229
I bought the Canon 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS ten years ago. Performing as well today as it did when I purchased for a Macro Class. Beautiful, crisp, nice color and don’t forget about the Image Stabilization. Also a great Portrait lens as well.

I am looking at a few lenses right now. Used with a 180L or Sigma 150mm and new would pretty much be limited to Sigma 105mm. I do not do any people shots. This will be more for macro or some telephoto work. and in the end, if my plans go as they should I will be doing product shots for websites. I wouldn't mind the 100L, but I might have to wait for something like that till I earn money from the project. I really just want a good working distance for macro and not be right up on a insect.

EdATX wrote in post #19267397
I am looking at a few lenses right now. Used with a 180L or Sigma 150mm and new would pretty much be limited to Sigma 105mm. I do not do any people shots. This will be more for macro or some telephoto work. and in the end, if my plans go as they should I will be doing product shots for websites. I wouldn't mind the 100L, but I might have to wait for something like that till I earn money from the project. I really just want a good working distance for macro and not be right up on a insect.

How much space do you have available for product shots? How large are the products?

Personally I have used the EF-S 60 Macro, the EF 50L, 135L, the latter two with and without extension tubes, 180L Macro, TS-E 45 and TS-E 90 for product shots, and I have used all of those for Macro as well. I have also used the non-L Macro, and tested the 100L Macro, but did not like these two, basically because the FL goes down to around 70 mm at the macro end, and I did not like the rendering in difficult, darker environments - which is personal obviously.
For product shots I mostly used the TS-E 90, BTW.

When getting close to subjects, as in, semi- to full Macro mode, you will have AF problems with macro lenses, although the internal focusing ones, like the EF 100 and EF 100L, will have less problems. This is caused by the optics shifting more while the subject distance shifts less, which makes it impossible to gain focus in the first place when you get closer to a subject. With a lens like the MP-E 65 it gets really bad, just forget about AF.

My eyes are not great either, as I suffer from shifting and chaning keratoconuses (yes, multiple, need new glasses every few months currently), and hence continuously changing astigmatism. Neither do I like to apply a tripod for macro shots, as I have gotten lazy over the years. I did find a solution, however. I actually use a flash handgrip, in my case an old, used, left side 6x6 vivitar flash handgrip, although a Hassy one should also do. Mount it on the camera, with or without flash, depending on how dark it is or which lens and magnification you use (with the MP-E 65 that means a flash when handholding at all times, really);. Anyway, this setup allows me to hold the camera quite stable with two hands, so I dial in the magnification / focusing distance, and then move with camera to the point where things appear in focus. Live View or mirrorless helps here, obviously. When in focus, I fire the shot, and repeat that a few times.

Works well for me up to around 10x magnification. And it makes for a very flexible setup.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Products will all be small, able to set up everything on a folding table. The biggest thing would prob be the size of a normal soda can. I will prob have to use their facility for the shoots, so a small warehouse. But the product stuff is secondary, since that may or may not happen. It all depends on if I move at year's end. Since I can say that for sure at this time, I will just go off the notion that this lens will be person use for insects, flowers, etc.

I am really considering a longer FL lens for this.

MF for me, I can only see out of one eye these days, for me what I see is very dark and color saturation is very dull. What I see is blurry and MF for me comes down to "OK, I think it is in focus now" and luck. I am trying to have as much fun with photography as the time allows me before I just can't see at all.

L is giving good colors and contrast.
180L is only makes sense for chasing butterflies, IMO. I was able to get close to living creatures on the table and earth with 100L without big problems. Not to mention still life.

EdATX wrote in post #19267602
Products will all be small, able to set up everything on a folding table. The biggest thing would prob be the size of a normal soda can. I will prob have to use their facility for the shoots, so a small warehouse. But the product stuff is secondary, since that may or may not happen. It all depends on if I move at year's end. Since I can say that for sure at this time, I will just go off the notion that this lens will be person use for insects, flowers, etc.

I am really considering a longer FL lens for this.

MF for me, I can only see out of one eye these days, for me what I see is very dark and color saturation is very dull. What I see is blurry and MF for me comes down to "OK, I think it is in focus now" and luck. I am trying to have as much fun with photography as the time allows me before I just can't see at all.

Sorry to hear about your eyes. I truly hope it won;t deteriorate beyond the point you are at right now.

With your eye problems, plus Insects and flowers, I'd recommend the 180L if you prefer that extra bit of distance between lens and object. Just take into account that it may focus slowly occasionally, or even hunt - just turn the focusing barrel, and re-apply AF at that point, that does the trick for me. For ease of use probably the 100L. Since both are IF lenses, AF is possible with those, even for macro and close-up.

You could actually also consider the 100-400L, with achromatic close-up lens in that case, 2 diopters is plenty, and will get you to 1:1 at about 35 cm distance between object and lens at 400 mm, and about 0.25x magnification at 100 mm. I use this combo a lot for shooting damselflies and dragonflies, even without close-up lens. Th eone I have is the Canon 500D achromat, just that that is no longer in production.

All of the above lenses should really be available quite easily in the used market, and as to the 100-400L, I preferred the Mk I for macro and close-ups, because it is a push-pull zoom, and because it appears it did better at close-ups and macro than my current Mk II version does.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

kf095 wrote in post #19267652
L is giving good colors and contrast.
180L is only makes sense for chasing butterflies, IMO. I was able to get close to living creatures on the table and earth with 100L without big problems. Not to mention still life.

Not only butterflies, IMO. Any insects with a body similar in length, or larger, like dragonflies and damselflies.

I also used it for handheld productphotography, f.e., pens.

Kind regards, Wim

EdATX wrote in post #19267397
I am looking at a few lenses right now. Used with a 180L or Sigma 150mm and new would pretty much be limited to Sigma 105mm. I do not do any people shots. This will be more for macro or some telephoto work. and in the end, if my plans go as they should I will be doing product shots for websites. I wouldn't mind the 100L, but I might have to wait for something like that till I earn money from the project. I really just want a good working distance for macro and not be right up on a insect.

Then you want a longer FL!
If you shoot a 20mm long bug and it it virtually filling your 22mm long frame area, that is about 1:1 reproduction.
With a 100mm lens (which a 100mm lens IS NOT while at its macro distance...it is really about 75mm!) 1:1 reproduction is achieved when the subject-to-focalplane is 400mm; but at 75mm this distance is actually about 300mm. Longer FL gives you a longer separation from your subject while achieving the 1:1 reproduction.

As pointed out, macro lenses tend to focus slower than non-macro lenses, so all non-macro shooting will suffer the slower AF speed.
Perhaps a non-macro lens and extension tubes will permit macro magnification without sacrifice of AF speeds for non-macro shots.

You absolutely will never need a true macro lens to shoot soda can sized objects!

Longer fl on small insects is like long fl on bif. Not so easy to find the subject.

Wilt wrote in post #19267730
Then you want a longer FL!
If you shoot a 20mm long bug and it it virtually filling your 22mm long frame area, that is about 1:1 reproduction.
With a 100mm lens (which a 100mm lens IS NOT while at its macro distance...it is really about 75mm!) 1:1 reproduction is achieved when the subject-to-focalplane is 400mm; but at 75mm this distance is actually about 300mm. Longer FL gives you a longer separation from your subject while achieving the 1:1 reproduction.

As pointed out, macro lenses tend to focus slower than non-macro lenses, so all non-macro shooting will suffer the slower AF speed.
Perhaps a non-macro lens and extension tubes will permit macro magnification without sacrifice of AF speeds for non-macro shots.

You absolutely will never need a true macro lens to shoot soda can sized objects!

In addition, the 100 macro, both L and non-L, has an effective FL of 70 mm at 1:1, so the object to lens ditsance, and the object to sensor distance is even less, a lot less.

The 180L at 1:1 effectively is a 125 mm lens or thereabouts, and although it is longer, you have way more working distance than with a 100 mm macro lens.

kf095 wrote in post #19267956
Longer fl on small insects is like long fl on bif. Not so easy to find the subject.

I do not agree when it comes to close-up and macro-photography. It is equally difficult, because it is about trying to fill the VF as much as possible with an object that is not still. Being a little further waway from th eobject actually makes it slightly easier IME, as ong as the lens does not become very long, FL-wise.
You are limited by the VF, not by FL in these cases, unless you go very long, like 300 or 400 mm. And the latter is why people tend to use zoom lenses for close-up photography in that case, like the 100-400L. IOW, find the object at 100 mm, and then zoom in to the required FL, or rather, the required magnification.

Kind regards, Wim