Canon 100mm F2.8 EF MACRO vs. Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO EX DG HSM Macro

I can get either of these lenses at practically the same price, but which would be best? I'm looking to photograph mainly insects, so would the greater focal length of the Sigma be better, or the supposed quality of the Canon? I'm going to buy the Sigma Ring Flash too for lighting.

Many thanks for any help!

Read some reviews and you will see its not the IQ that separates the two.

For FF, the 150mm may be a better choice.. With 100mm you have to get really close. I have been very pleased with my sigma. Good af and sharp from f2.8 to f16.

There's noting wrong with the Quality of the Sigma. Both are very good lens, I like extra the working distance of the Sigma.

The Sigma 150 is the only non-Canon lens that I own....simply can't bring myself to part with it. Certainly there's nothing wrong with either of the 100mm Canon macro's but the Sigma holds its own very well. One extra thing to factor in your thinking....the Sigma comes with a hood and tripod mount but they're both extras if buying the 100/2.8 (non-L version)

Bob

Okay, thank you both for your advice.

I've read a lot about the Sigma being heavy and having slow AF, and I've also read that realistically it cannot be used without a tripod. Also, I've read that although its sharpness and general IQ are very good, they are not quite as good as that of the Canon's. Would it be a good idea for me to buy the Canon lens and perhaps later purchase some extension tubes if I needed the extra distance? I mean, a great deal of the photographs I will be taking are likely to be of captive praying mantids which aren't likely to make a run for it, so hopefully working distance won't affect me terribly...

Also, as I mentioned, I'm buying the Sigma Ring Flash too, which I believe comes with 55mm and 58mm adapters - I assume that this means it will be immediately compatible with the Canon lens? I've never had a ring flash or even a flash for that matter, so I'm not sure how it all works!


EDIT: How much would a separate lens hood be and what is a tripod mount?

Jack McEntire wrote in post #9265662
Okay, thank you both for your advice.

I've read a lot about the Sigma being heavy and having slow AF, and I've also read that realistically it cannot be used without a tripod. Also, I've read that although its sharpness and general IQ are very good, they are not quite as good as that of the Canon's. Would it be a good idea for me to buy the Canon lens and perhaps later purchase some extension tubes if I needed the extra distance? I mean, a great deal of the photographs I will be taking are likely to be of captive praying mantids which aren't likely to make a run for it, so hopefully working distance won't affect me terribly...

Also, as I mentioned, I'm buying the Sigma Ring Flash too, which I believe comes with 55mm and 58mm adapters - I assume that this means it will be immediately compatible with the Canon lens? I've never had a ring flash or even a flash for that matter, so I'm not sure how it all works!

EDIT: How much would a separate lens hood be and what is a tripod mount?

I would say all you have read is not true .

Really? I've read the same thing 3 or 4 times.

How vital is a lens hood by the way?

Its very much hand holdable.. Just get the shutter speed a little up. dont expect 1/50 to be sharp. It is great for portraits, and if IQ and sharpness isnt enough, what more do you want?

You can check out my pictures at http://www.flickr.com …%20150mm&w=2672​1345%40N04

Jack McEntire wrote in post #9265740
Really? I've read the same thing 3 or 4 times.

How vital is a lens hood by the way?

Well its pure bull**** :d

The hood is pretty vital (for the 150). Keeps the glass protected..

For a macro the the AF on the 150mm macro is very good and fast(for a macro) when the limit switch is used. As far as IQ and sharpness is concerned, they are about the same. The Sigma maybe a little warmer in color. I notice it more when I let the camera decided the WB.Something I hardly do anymore.
There really is not that much difference in the weight, but I'm use to using a 3 pound lens. Others might find it too much.

I sold my Canon 100 1 day after getting my SIgma 150. Sigma comes with collar and hood, both must haves, IMO. Sigma has the fastest AF of any macros lens I have ever used. Means it can do double duty as a regular telephoto. It is IF, front does not rotate, lens does not change in length, they way all lenses should be. I have never put it on a tripod. I use a monopod a lot though.

Lol, ah, okay, nice shots by the way! I'm really unsure as to what to get now!

Have you got anything to say about the Canon, or could anyone give me the pros and cons of each? I've already seen several on other sites but by the sounds of it they're not to be trusted!

EDIT: Thanks for the most recent comments! I'm getting a better idea of it now, lol...

I guess I've just got it stuck in my head that 'Canon is better than Sigma', lol, as I've always been told that if I can afford Canon, get Canon.


Here's some old-ish shots of two orchid mantids taken with my Tamron 70-300 (1:2) - they're not brilliant because at the time I'd only been doing photography for a month, but you get the idea of the kind of style I'm going for; it's almost 'portraiture', I guess:

Jack McEntire wrote in post #9265662
Okay, thank you both for your advice.

I've read a lot about the Sigma being heavy and having slow AF, and I've also read that realistically it cannot be used without a tripod. Also, I've read that although its sharpness and general IQ are very good, they are not quite as good as that of the Canon's. Would it be a good idea for me to buy the Canon lens and perhaps later purchase some extension tubes if I needed the extra distance? I mean, a great deal of the photographs I will be taking are likely to be of captive praying mantids which aren't likely to make a run for it, so hopefully working distance won't affect me terribly...

Also, as I mentioned, I'm buying the Sigma Ring Flash too, which I believe comes with 55mm and 58mm adapters - I assume that this means it will be immediately compatible with the Canon lens? I've never had a ring flash or even a flash for that matter, so I'm not sure how it all works!


EDIT: How much would a separate lens hood be and what is a tripod mount?

I almost never use a tripod a get excellent results used on butterflies, dragonflies, flowers, etc. As for extension tubes getting you extra distance, just the opposite is true. They allow you to get closer (and increase magnification).

Okay, thank you. I have little idea about macro equipment, forgive me!

I think I'm leaning towards the Sigma now... what advantages does the Canon have?

Jack McEntire wrote in post #9265868
Okay, thank you. I have little idea about macro equipment, forgive me!

I think I'm leaning towards the Sigma now... what advantages does the Canon have?

I really don't know, but I don't have anything bad to say about either lens. Both are very good. It just depends on what you want. I wanted the Sigma for the extra length shooting bugs. The Sigma does work very well with a 1.4 converter also.
It does take a 2x well, but plan on manual focusing with it.

Here's a quirk I accidentally discovered about my SIgma 150 macro lens - with a 12mm tube attached, there is enough focus past infinity to get you infinity focus. Now we are talking more than 1:1. Infinity as well.