canon 100mm 2.8 macro or sigma 150 mm 2.8 macro?

Im planning to buy a macro lens to add to my current set up. I've read about Bryan's great reviews of both. It seems that the Sigma 150mm is sharper & better build than the Canon counterpart. But Canon has a fast & accurate auto focus! But in his review, he also mentioned that the Sigma is a great lens if used as a manual focus lens. Is the Sigma macro really superior optically than the Canon when manually focused? Does it have a better bokeh? I would like to start out with macro photography & would like also to have something that can double up as a portrait lens or even for candid.


Please advise.

The Sigma 150 and 180 macros are strictly macro lenses. If you need your macro lens for anything besides macro (like portraits), it's a no-brainer: get the 100 macro. Simple as that. Optical quality is good on all of them. Don't worry about that.


brendan

If you have the budget, theCanon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lensis an excellent lens that will do macro and portraits. The image stabilization is great for ambient light portraiture (especially with YOUR SHAKYY HANDS - yes, I read your bio [;)]), although not as effective at macro distances. Else, go with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (non-IS).


Brendan's right - all of these lenses are incredibly sharp with excellent IQ. The 150mm focal length of the Sigma is likely too long for portraits on your crop body (85-100mm is good for head/shoulders), and Sigma lenses have autofocus issues that would make me reluctant to use them for portraits.


However, I notice in your bio that you have the 85mm f/1.8 which is a great portrait lens (I love mine for that use)! If so, you may only need to shoot macro with your macro lens and if that's the case, consider what you'll be shooting. If you're going to hunt bugs, get the longest focal length macro lens that you can. But for anything that doesn't scare easily (plants are good that way!), the 100mm focal length will be fine.

Thanks for the advice bburns223 & neuroanatomist! But has anyone tried the Sigma 150mm on the field? I tried the Canon 100mm Macro & tried the Sigma on Nikon mount (D3). Sharpness-wise, its difficult to judge as I have used 2 different bodies. Both of them are really sharp! I'm not a pixel-peeper as I can't say which one is better. On a pro level, would you ever suggest the Sigma/Canon in a heartbeat? Is there any other 3rd party macro lens that can stand up to the IQ torture test against the brands mentioned above?[;)]

Hey sirhc_1, I actually got a used sigma 150 two days ago!


If you ask me, Bryan's review was almost 100% correct!


The only things that are not correct (at least in my opinion) are those he said about the lens hood and tripod collar:


1. I have no problem to put the hood on the lens without doing anything special - sits perfectly on the lens, goes in and out without a problem.


2. The tripod collar works great for me and I don't see how one can accidentally open it and send the lens to the ground.


With that said, note that Bryan has worked with 100's of lenses, cameras, hoods, tripod collars and so on... while for me, this is the first time I use a tripod collar.


Also note that as the guys here said, I'm not sure this is a portrait lens. I also thought just like you before I got it, but on a crop body it's a bit too long. So... I guess if you have enough space it'd be fine for portraits but just don't count on it as you might find it too long.


Since I have it for only 2 days, I can't tell you much more than I already did, but you can still feel free to ask for example pics I took with it or you can just wait a bit more until I have more experience with this lens.

hey!


I have had the sigma 150mm macro for just over 9 months now. I really, really like it! I find on my XTi that it isn't too long for portraits, of course I like really tight head, or head and torso shots. You do have to stand a little farther away than you would with the 100, but it is still a good lens. The focus hasn't proven frustrating for me, but I never do action shooting with that lens. I find that if it is having trouble using the FTM to put the focus in the range will solve the problem quickly


For macro work it is brilliant! excellent colors and great sharpness. As Oren said I have had no problems with either the hood or tripod collar, the one problem, at least at the beginning, is that the collar sticks a bit when you are trying to shift from portrait to landscape or viceversa on a a tripod, but after a few times it wears just a little and works brilliantly.


Bryan doesn't like the EX finish on the lens, I findi it rather nice. It may collect dirt, but i haven't had that problem.


All in all I think it is a great lens. As I am sure you are aware the canon L lens adds in the option of IS which is helpful for macro work and for portraiture. I will throw a couple of pictures from my XTi and Sigma below. Before I do that this flickr set were all taken with it.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.31.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_0185.jpg[/img]


The white thing is a piece of paper my dad was trying to get the guy onto. The picture shows how narrow your depth of field is at f/2.8 at 1:1.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.31.08/selfportraitweb.JPG[/img]


my wife and I, self portrait with a wireless remote!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oren

or you can just wait a bit more until I have more experience with this lens.

---

Hi Oren! I would be glad to wait for the samples. Meanwhile, I would definitely save up for the Canon 100mm L IS Macro. Now I'm torn between the Canon IS macro & the Sigma 150mm! [:D]

Whatsreal, those are great pics! I like the macro shot of that insect. The second pic is really sharp! What was the aperture size of that shot (2nd)? I'll try to borrow or rent this lens for the time being just to see how it really feels in the field. Thanks for those points to ponder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

Now I'm torn between the Canon IS macro & the Sigma 150mm!

---

I own the EF 100 f2.8. It's a great lens. I also have a Tamron 1.4X TC that works well to add even more reach and magnification. I have used this lens and lens combination on both the 40D and the 5D. It works well.


I am glad that I didn't spend a ton of money for a macro. I dabble, but don't shoot a lot of macro. The EF 100 f2.8 is a really good portrait lens. A little long on the 40D, really nice on the 5D. I shoot macro in manual focus only. When the working distance is down to 6-8 inches all you have to do is rock back and forth slightly to bring the subject into focus. It then becomes a matter of technique. At f11 on the 40D and f16 on the 5D, hand hold shooting with natural light at lower than ISO 800is pretty much impossible. You will want a twin flash or macro ring light setup. I use strobist setups as much as possible.


So, if you think you're going to dabble, I'd highly suggest starting simple and as inexpensively as possible. You can always sell and upgrade if you find yourself shootingmacro a lot.


Here's a couple of samples from last year.


http://ChuckLee.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p925505480-3.jpg


Canon EOS 5D, <span class="nowrap"]f/16 @ <span class="nowrap"]100 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/200, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 400, <span class="nowrap"]Flash (with home made 6 x 6 diffuser)


http://ChuckLee.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p533617847-3.jpg


Canon EOS 40D, <span class="nowrap"]f/2.8 @ <span class="nowrap"]100 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/200, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 320

Hey Chuck Lee, those are also great samples! Now its gonna be more difficult! I think you're probably right. I might want to start of with a least expensive set up for macro photography. Then, when Im pretty sure I'm gonna be doing macro a lot, then that's the only time im gonna spend on an L glass macro. And that would probably be the IS version. BTW, Chuck, any comparison between the IS &amp; non-IS version regarding IQ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

BTW, Chuck, any comparison between the IS &amp; non-IS version regarding IQ?

---

It's more or less the same. The IS version's advantage, besides IS, is far superior build quality. But IQ is very similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

Chuck, any comparison between the IS &amp; non-IS version regarding IQ?

---

Believe me... I wish I could show you!! LOL [:D] That new L IS version looks killer. If money weren't an object. [:'(]


I know wickerprints has the new L IS version. I don't know if he had the older one before that.


You can also compare them here:Remember, for macro you will usually be shooting at apetures of f8 and higher.

I bought both, and kept the Sigma 150mm. My copy was significantly sharper - perhaps too sharp for portraits, depending on skin condition - and in my shooting environs, a more useful macro lens. The build quality is significantly better. I've had no problems with the AF on my Sigma, and have even used it for shooting low-light concerts! I was using two bodies, and needed another longer range lens on my 5D, as the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS was on the 1D Mk II. My keeper rate from the Sigma was acceptable enough that I didn't feel it had AF issues, despite having subjects moving around all over the stage. Below are some shots with the Sigma 150mm on a 1Ds Mk II, a 1D Mk II, and a 5D, respectively: [img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/monique_2D00_headshot_2D00_sigma150_2D00_1.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/insect_2D00_sigma150_2D00_1.jpg[/img]


Canon 5D w/ Sigma 150mm EX f/2.8 Macro - 150mm @ f/3.2, 1/50 sec at ISO 800 = low light concert


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.89/_5F00_T6Q1293.jpg[/img]

Guys, those are very tempting photos! Highly appreciate it. BTW, I have a 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS &amp; I am planning to get either the 100mm 2.8 macro non-IS/ L IS or the Sigma 150mm Macro. Is it a wise decision to sell the 70-200mm 2.8L? I do have 24-70mm &amp; 85mm 1.8. Is it okay to sell it or just save up for the macro lens? 100 2.8 macro L IS vs sigma 150mm 2.8 EX DG HSM macro?[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

Is it a wise decision to sell the 70-200mm 2.8L?

---

IMHO, No, save up for the macro lens. I have a EF 100 f2.8 Macro and still use my 70-200 f2.8L more even indoors. I like the extra reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

IMHO, No, save up for the macro lens.

---

I second!

100L IS is an excellent macro and portrait lens. [:D]


IMO it is much better than Sigma 150 which is heavier and NO IS.[:(]