Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens VS Canon EF180mm f/3.5L Macro?

A Q about how good is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens compared to the Canon EF180mm f/3.5L Macro?

Having both 5DMK2 and 7D I would need to my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro a little more tele-macro possibilities - BUT - I am not completely convinced that I could trust the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO over Canons own tele-macro EF 180mm even if it is not equally fast as the Sigma!

Is there perhaps anyone here who have real life field experience of maybe even comparing these two or other tele-macro lenses to this Sigma 150mm?

I just saw someone who wish to sell a Sigma with Sigmas macro-lite flash for this lens for quite reasonable price - so I need to act quickly before this chance is gone!

Cheers,

Charl

Bryan hasn't done a full review, but based on the ISO chart crops, it looks decent. It's softer wide open, but it's 2.8, instead of 3.5. Stopping down to f/4 they both look pretty sharp.

I have no idea how the AF on this lens compares to other Sigmas. I know many of their lenses are known to have focus issues, but if you're using it for Macro, then Sigma's auto-focus issues may not be a concern, as you typically manual focus and use a large F. If you plan to double this lens as a general telephoto / portrait lens you may want to search the web for information about the AF. In terms of sharpness it looks fine.

Hey,

I own the Sigma 150mm and I am very happy with it. I never used the Canon 180mm so I can't compare. Now, since you asked about it, I will assume that the 30mm difference between the two is not important to you.

I only once used the Canon 100mm that you own with my camera in a photo store that I went to. I have to say that this lens is lightening-fast! probably the fastest lens that I used (even though it was for just few mins).
So, don't expect that from the Sigma - sometimes the sigma's AF "hunts" a lot. That's I believe the only downside of the sigma 150mm - besides that, it's an awesome lens and I really recommend it if the primary use for it is macro. In macro you'll probably be manually focusing anyways so you shouldn't worry for the AF performance. I find myself manually focusing with it when shooting macro 99.9% of the time.

Regarding the image quality - it's simply great all the way from f/2.8 and beyond that. I personally didn't compare its f/2.8 to f/4.0 but I've read that f/4.0 is just slightly better than f/2.8 which is already great (just like DavidEccleston above me said).

I suggest that you read this article by "Juza" (an Italian nature photographer) http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=63