Canon 100mm 2.8 macro vs. Sigma 180 macro

Does anyone have any idea of how fast these two lens compare in AF? I currently use the Canon 100 macro as my favorite lens for shooting humming birds because the AF is super fast. But thinking about the Sigma 180mm macro or Canon 180mm macro for more reach.

Thanks

Sigma has the 150 macro as well. It's a little bit faster at f2.8 than the 180 at f3.5. It is also one of Sigma's best lenses. Never heard anyone say anything bad about it, other than a little slow in AF department.

I had one and miss it a lot

The Sigma 180 macro isn't a speed deamon, but combining the focus limiter, good light, and a large target like a humming bird should net good results. But I guess the same could be said of any lens.

How close do you get to the hummingbirds? Do you really need macro? A normal prime will focus faster than any macro. Keep your 100mm Macro and buy another lens that compliments it, that would be my advice (but I've never shot hummingbirds, so take that with a grain of salt).

The Sigma 180mm does focus very fast indeed, it just doesn't seem so if it has to rack out and in again because it's such a long way on a macro lens. It has a focus limiter so that problem is moot. It is a superb lens, I'll never sell mine. I could go on about its qualities but this review pretty much reflects my views.

foxbat wrote in post #10637240
The Sigma 180mm does focus very fast indeed, it just doesn't seem so if it has to rack out and in again because it's such a long way on a macro lens. It has a focus limiter so that problem is moot. It is a superb lens, I'll never sell mine. I could go on about its qualities but this review pretty much reflects my views.

I used mine for hummingbirds for 3 seasons and it will focus on hummingbirds with and without the Sigma 1.4x TC.

Taken with the 1DmkIIn and 1.4x TC, exif intact:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Thanks for the good replys. Rudi, I'm using the 100 macro from 5 to 6 ft away so I'm not using its closup capability. Its AF was just way faster that the 70-200 zoom and they were the only choices with me today.

What do you mean only choices? You already own them?

Having not shot hummingbirds I wonder whether fast AF is really needed. Based on the shots I see they appear to be hovering and if the lens is pre-focused most should be fast enough, and MF may even be more suitable in some cases.?

A 135mm might be a suitable lens, or if you're considering the 180m macro then why not the Canon 200mm F/2.8? A prime will generally result in nicer bokeh where close by branches and so on are only slightly out of focus, but if that's not a real issue then maybe you should just try your 70-200 a bit more.

phreeky wrote in post #10639870
What do you mean only choices? You already own them?

Having not shot hummingbirds I wonder whether fast AF is really needed. Based on the shots I see they appear to be hovering and if the lens is pre-focused most should be fast enough, and MF may even be more suitable in some cases.?

A 135mm might be a suitable lens, or if you're considering the 180m macro then why not the Canon 200mm F/2.8? A prime will generally result in nicer bokeh where close by branches and so on are only slightly out of focus, but if that's not a real issue then maybe you should just try your 70-200 a bit more.

Wow, Phreeky. Yes, moderately fast AF is a requirement, to be sure, and the camera's AF needs to be pretty good too. They appear to be hovering only because of fast AF and excellent technique. These birds do not stay in one place for very long . I do agree that if you don't have a 7d or 1 series body, pre-focus and MF is usually the way to go. Good lenses for hummingbirds (imo) are the Sigma 180 and the Canon 300 f/4 IS. 135L and 200/2.8 L don't have a high enough magnification factor for these tiny birds. With rare exception, a prime is going to be killer for feather detail, a zoom, well, not so much, lol.

One from this season:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'