Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 20 Mar 2005 (Sunday) 06:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Sigma macro 105

 
sagebrush
Member
158 posts
Joined Dec 2001
     
Mar 20, 2005 06:27 |  #1

I just saw some great shots using 300D with a Sigma 105 f/2.8 EX DG macro. Their 100 bucks less at B&H than Canon's 100 f/2.8 macro, an inch shorter, and weigh a third less. Min focus distance is 12.2" vs 6" with a Canon. Does that mean you have to get 6" closer using a Canon to achieve the same 1:1 magnification?

Does anyone have experience using one?

I have a 20D and Canon all the way.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hellashot
Goldmember
4,617 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 20, 2005 07:02 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban

sagebrush wrote:
Min focus distance is 12.2" vs 6" with a Canon. Does that mean you have to get 6" closer using a Canon to achieve the same 1:1 magnification?

It should mean that with the Canon you CAN get 6" closer to the object. If you were to go 6" from the object with the other lens you would not be able to focus. Sounds like if you want to save $100 it would be a decent lens, but the Canon would give you more for your money.


5D, Drebel, EOS-3, K1000
lenses from 12mm-500mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
Mar 20, 2005 09:36 |  #3

For fixed-length macro lenses the min focus distance is where 1:1 happens. It's physically impossible for two macro lenses of such similar focal lengths to have such different min focus distances if both have a max magnification of 1:1.

6" vs 12" for 100mm vs 105mm - both at 1:1 - doesn't make sense. So, checking both Sigma's page and Canon's page shows that both lenses min focus is approximately 12 inches. B&H's page on the Canon is wrong.

http://consumer.usa.ca​non.com …tegoryid=155&mo​delid=7400 (external link)
http://www.sigmaphoto.​com …s.asp?id=3291&n​avigator=5 (external link)

The Sigma is an excellent lens. I'm very happy with mine, even though it likes to hunt for focus a lot. If I were to buy a 100(ish)mm macro lens again I'd spend the extra $100 for the Canon.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
52,922 posts
Gallery: 193 photos
Likes: 10111
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Mar 20, 2005 10:03 |  #4

Or look at the new Sigma 150mm (150?) With the HSM motor for faster focus and more working distance,.. but it won't break the bank like the 180mm's do..


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iwatkins
Goldmember
1,510 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2003
Location: Gloucestershire, UK
     
Mar 20, 2005 11:08 |  #5

I have the older 105mm Sigma macro and think it is great, really sharp, but dog slow at focusing.

Might have to take a look at the 150mm :)

As an aside, when I went to look at the Sigma site in the UK, I typed in the URL incorrectly. Instead of typing in http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/ (external link), I typed in http://www.sigma-imaging.co.uk/ (external link). What is wrong with this picture ? ;)

Cheers

Ian




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mogwyth
Member
Avatar
181 posts
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Llanarmon N.Wales
     
Mar 20, 2005 11:25 as a reply to  @ iwatkins's post |  #6

iwatkins wrote:
As an aside, when I went to look at the Sigma site in the UK, I typed in the URL incorrectly. Instead of typing in http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/ (external link), I typed in http://www.sigma-imaging.co.uk/ (external link). What is wrong with this picture ? ;)

I am amazed that Sigma have let them get away with that.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts.
~300D & Grip ~ EOS 500n~A70~
~Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM EX~Canon 28-70 f4.5-5.6~Canon 50 f1.8~
~Sigma 18-50 DC~Sigma 1.4 EX~Sigma EF-500 DG super~ZapShot RF Remote~
~Velbon Sherpa Pro CF-630~

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
foxbat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,432 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Essex, UK.
     
Mar 20, 2005 11:37 |  #7

I own the 105mm. It is very sharp, colour and contrast are faithfully reproduced and is small and light enough to walk around with comfortably. All the negative comments about the AF are, unfortunately, true. It does hunt a lot and is slow and noisy. If the extra $200 for the 150mm HSM doesn't matter to you then I would get it, otherwise you won't be disappointed with the 105mm.


Andy Brown; South-east England. Canon, Sigma, Leica, Zeiss all on Canon DSLRs. My hacking blog (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ScottE
Goldmember
3,179 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2004
Location: Kelowna, Canada
     
Mar 20, 2005 12:18 |  #8

I have the Sigma 105 macro lens and it is extremely sharp and enjoyable to use.

But, if I was buying again I would have a close look at the Canon. The Canon has a USM AF motor that is faster, quieter and allows full time manual override. The Canon also has an available tripod mount ring that would be very useful for orienting the camera for macro photos.

Note that the price for the Canon 100mm macro lens does not include the lens hood and tripod ring, so they are extra cost. By the time you pay for those the price is about the same as the Sigma 150 macro lens.

Scott




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nitsch
Goldmember
2,393 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2005
     
Mar 20, 2005 13:16 |  #9

I also have the Sigma 105mm which I use in conjunction with my 300D. It is the newer DG model, which is supposedly tailored for digital cameras, although I don't know if it is really all that different to the other model to be honest. I agree with all the above comments that it is a truly fantastic lens, but I don't have a problem with the autofocus simply because I don't use it! When doing macro work I always focus manually.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ron ­ chappel
Cream of the Crop
Honorary Moderator
Avatar
3,554 posts
Joined Sep 2003
Location: Qld ,Australia
     
Mar 20, 2005 14:07 |  #10

I owned one briefly.It is a sharp lens but certainly no better than a normal prime lens at non macro distances (snapshots,portraits,e​tc).To be honest the sharpness at macro distances wasn't stunning either.
I did a comparison with a EF50/1.8 at equal aperture/cropping and the 50/1.8 was slightly better .
While this sounds good (it is kinda),the fact is that the canon 100 macro is a much sharper lens,one of the best ever made by anyone! :eek: :eek:
I still regret selling my EF100 macro even though i couldn't justify keeping it (never used it):cry:

My experience with the sigma match the results of this test
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100​E.html (external link)
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100​E.html (external link)


I'm allways in two minds when recommending macro lenses-on one hand you can get very sharp lenses for a good price (sigma etc)

or...you can spend abit more and get one of the sharpest general purpose/macro lenses ever;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,345 views & 0 likes for this thread, 10 members have posted to it.
Sigma macro 105
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Mihai Bucur
1212 guests, 131 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.