Best 100mm macro lens for up to around £500 (Canon)

dtokez

Suspended / Banned
Messages
127
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, what do you guys think? I'm looking at the SIGMA 105mm Macro f2.8 EX DG OS HSM but wondering if there are any other alternatives for similar money?

Thanks :)
 
I've got the sigma and really like it, useful portrait lens too (obviously not lightning fast). I'm not a proper macro shooter, just like to play around dabble in it every now and then. I use to have the 60mm canon on my crop and that was superb, again a good portrait too. Went full frame, tried the canon 100m (Non L I think) and just didn't like it. Sigma I have no complaints.
 
I use the 100mm L f2.8 and it's superb but to be honest you can't go wrong with any of the brands out there.
I have used many macro lenses in the past and have yet to come accross a bad one ... in fact I use an old manual focus Vivitar 105mm f2.5 macro on my Pentax kit which is nearly as old as I am (and it's still as sharp as the newest lenses .. unlike me).
 
I would agree with Andrew - I used to have the Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS L Macro and it was a great lens. A s/hand copy should be within budget as they are only £620 new at the moment.
 
I have the Canon 100mm macro lens ( not L edition ) which i use with full frame and ive always thought its a decent lens but its rare i use it for actual macro photos ;)
I have in the past sold off all my Canon gear yet later on decided to go back to Canon which i did buying myself the same model Canon 100mm macro lens again, I do have a few L lenses yet as ive been happy with the non L ive never been bothered about upgrading it.
 
I have just had a quick look on ebay but can't see many 2nd hand Canon L lenses at the moment. Will keep my eyes open though!

Any other alternatives?

cheers
 
I've used both the Canon 100's and the Sigma 105 and I found the 100L IS is the best of the bunch, I know it's the most expensive but imo it's worth it.
For an 'L' series lens at just over £600 new, I believe your getting a lot for the money. IQ is superb and the IS system is a huge bonus.
I recently sold my non IS and am now contemplating the L again myself, MPB have 3 'like new' for £539 at the moment. Warranty as well so no risk buying from them.
 
Last edited:
Agreed with Dibbly, when I was with Canon I got the non-l, "upgraded" to the L, but it wasn't that much better so sold it and went back to the non with no regrets.

Now I've a Tamron 90mm but haven't used it anywhere near enough to comment
 
I've used both the Canon 100L and the Sigma 105 OS, the Sigma was every bit, if not better than the Canon IMO. Bought the Siggy, great lens.
 
I've got the Tamron 90mm f2.8 VC. It's really sharp, great IQ and the VC is handy if you're using it handheld for non-macro uses. At 90mm it's also close to the classic portrait focal length of 85mm. This version can be had for less than £300 as there is a new version out.
Don't forget Tokina also make a 100mm f2.8 macro. Some people really rate it, but there's not so many around.
 
I've used both the Canon 100L and the Sigma 105 OS, the Sigma was every bit, if not better than the Canon IMO. Bought the Siggy, great lens.
A
Though I promoted the Canon L, the Sigma OS does get rave reviews. It was just that I wasn't as impressed with the one I had compared to the L but it could have been me at the time as I was a bit of a Canon L snob and didn't give it enough time.
I think in truth, there probably isn't a huge difference between any of them, certainly the Sigma is a great price new.
 
I've compared the L and non-L Canon 100mm macro lenses and for me there wasn't any noticeable difference between them in IQ terms. Both are very sharp, both focus quickly too.

The L has effective IS which is probably its main advantage, but needs an adaptor to attach a Canon ring flash (though I don't have one anyway)

The non-L Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro is an excellent lens and is ring flash ready. I would have bought one of these, but got a great deal on the L version so got that instead.

Others to consider, Canon EF-s 60mm Macro and EF 50mm f/2.5. Both very sharp and compact. The 60mm only works on crop bodies, the 50mm focusing is bit slow and without an adaptor only does half life-size images. The working distance from lens to subject is pretty short with these lenses, which might be an issue depending on what you want to shoot. Both have ring flash ready front fittings.
 
Last edited:
I have the Sigma 105mm OS and IQ is superb. Only criticism is the slow AF, but this is true of all macro lenses. Doesn't bother me too much though as when shooting macro I'm using MF anyway.
 
The Canon 100L is lovely but I would defy anybody to tell the difference between a pic taken with it and the non-L (all other things being equal) - I have had both and am currently using the non-L which is great and cheaper :)
Yes you're right there I've got the canon L and an old sigma 105 and I can't see any difference bettwen them for image quality
 
Just bought the L lens and it arrives tomorrow. Actually only bought it as I got a deal with the camera but I am looking forward to seeing how it performs as a portrait lens. I might actually sell it depending on it's performance as I was actually looking for a sigma 85 f1.4 or the sigma 50mm art. Hopefully this is a nice addition and i'll end up keeping it. Two lenses in one really if it is good.
 
Just bought the L lens and it arrives tomorrow. Actually only bought it as I got a deal with the camera but I am looking forward to seeing how it performs as a portrait lens. I might actually sell it depending on it's performance as I was actually looking for a sigma 85 f1.4 or the sigma 50mm art. Hopefully this is a nice addition and i'll end up keeping it. Two lenses in one really if it is good.
I shot the Captain and Lady Captain portraits for my golf club this year using a 50D and a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro. Was very pleased with the results.
 
Back
Top