QUESTION: Sigma 180mm Macro lens

I am thinking of getting a macro lens and am sort of thinking the Sigma 180mm might be for me. From what I read on the specs of the Sigma Vs The Canon is that these are almost identical so I am wondering if I should bother spending the extra $600ish dollars on the L version or just get a 180mm Macro.

Anyone here ever owned both? Looking for some of the expert help on this one. Thanks.

(Also anyone have the Sigma 180mm Macro for sale, let me know)

I've never used it, but most (if not all) who own it rave about it. Or, there's also the excellent 150 f2.8 EX Macro.

I have owned both. The Sigma 180 is a very good lens, the Canon is better both for color and sharpness. Is it $600 better, I can't really answer that for you but it is for me. As for the Sigma 150mm macro mentioned by lightrules, it is also a very good sharp lens but it only goes to f22 and this could produce depth of field problems in very close work. Nobody knows why Sigma did this. A good long focal length macro will go to f 32

I have only ever seen one macro distance review of macro lenses, my memory is the Sigma was not so good wide open and the Canon was generally better.

http://translate.googl​e.com …-8&prev=%2Flanguage_too​ls

Klaus did a fine review here http://www.photozone.d​e …es/sigma_180_35​/index.htm

LightRules wrote in post #2280545
Klaus did a fine review here http://www.photozone.d​e …es/sigma_180_35​/index.htm

Doesn't tell you much about performance at closeup distance where the aberations are likely to be very different however.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2280712
Doesn't tell you much about performance at closeup distance where the aberations are likely to be very different however.

Frankly, I've never heard a complaint about its close up performance (especially since it was designed for this kind of work). Here are a few more reviews for the OP, at least for more reading on this lens option:

http://www.shutterbug.​net/test_reports/0601s​b_sigma/
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …ma_180mm_macro_​review.htm
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …=135&sort=7&cat​=38&page=1

LightRules wrote in post #2280747
Frankly, I've never heard a complaint about its close up performance (especially since it was designed for this kind of work). Here are a few more reviews for the OP, at least for more reading on this lens option:

http://www.shutterbug.​net/test_reports/0601s​b_sigma/
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …ma_180mm_macro_​review.htm
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …=135&sort=7&cat​=38&page=1

Just pointing out that IMATEST measurements don't tell you much about the close focus performance of a lens.

As I say I know of only one extensive comparative macro range test (http://translate.googl​e.com/translat...langu​age_tools) and the Sigma did not look the good against Canon but it is quite a bit cheaper.

Of course its just one test, but the problem with most online reviews is they are just owner testimonials, or in some cases like most magazine test, where they try it out but don't do comparative IQ with other products.

That is the advantage of photozone, excellent site. But it tells little about close focus performance. The low magnification test results may be an indication of life size performance but you just don't know.

Here's a good review I found:

http://translate.googl​e.com …-8&prev=%2Flanguage_too​ls

But the looks of things the sharpest lens is the Canon MPE-65 then Tamron 180, Tamron 90, Sigma 50

illy wrote in post #2281023
Here's a good review I found:

http://translate.googl​e.com …-8&prev=%2Flanguage_too​ls

But the looks of things the sharpest lens is the Canon MPE-65 then Tamron 180, Tamron 90, Sigma 50

Like minds I see.

I don't think there is $600 worth of difference between the 2 . My choice will be between the Sigma 150 or 180mm.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2281038
Like minds I see.

Except yours doesn't work

illy wrote in post #2281049
Except yours doesn't work

Well the link does, the mind might be another matter.

CountryBoy wrote in post #2281040
I don't think there is $600 worth of difference between the 2 . My choice will be between the Sigma 150 or 180mm.

The sigma 150 sounds like its better than the 180, a lot newer also. The 150 is 50% heavier than the stalwalt Canon 100mm but a bit more managable than either or the 180mm's (Canon or Sigma).

Unfortunatly the review I posted pre-dates the 150mm, but if you hunt around he has an update than includes it, however its not directly comparative.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2281009
Just pointing out that IMATEST measurements don't tell you much about the close focus performance of a lens.

As I say I know of only one extensive comparative macro range test (http://translate.googl​e.com/translat...langu​age_tools) and the Sigma did not look the good against Canon but it is quite a bit cheaper.

Of course its just one test, but the problem with most online reviews is they are just owner testimonials, or in some cases like most magazine test, where they try it out but don't do comparative IQ with other products.

That is the advantage of photozone, excellent site. But it tells little about close focus performance. The low magnification test results may be an indication of life size performance but you just don't know.

Actually, I share a high regard in which PZ test results are generally being held. However, I also feel something must have gone awry with the IMA test of the 180L. At the focusing distances Klaus probably tested the lens, my 180L resolves better than any other lens I have with the possible exception of EF-60, EF 300 f/4 Non IS, and EF 17-55. Naturally, the 135L, 200 f/2.8 and 85's are in that general vicinity as well.