Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro lens v Sigma equivalent

photostar_1

photostar_1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,802
Name
Carole
Edit My Images
Yes
A bit of advice please, if you don't mind.

I fancy getting a dedicated macro lens to try all this close up stuff that you all seem to do so well, My question is this....do I go for the dedicated Canon lens, or the Sigma? (I have the canon 350 D). I have no idea if this is an area of photography that is going to grab me, so my feeling is go for the cheaper option............BUT.......is it a false economy? I tried out the Sigma today and was quite impressed, but they didn't have the Canon to compare it with. Is the Canon worth the extra £100? I can afford it, but that's not the point....is it???
 
Hard to answer photostar - I had the same choice a while back and bought the Canon 100mm and I've been thrilled with it. Why the Canon? Simply because I saw a good number of stunning shots on here and liked the feel of it! The results I've had I've been pleased with but I'll never know if it was worth the extra - its just feels right!!! (Thats as useful as a chocolate fireguard I know!)
 
the Canon's quicker focussing, built like a tank, 100% compatible (future proofing), sharp as anything and stays the same length when focussing, lovely lens.
 
So you've ruled out the Canon EF-S 60mm macro?
 
All the reviews I have seen really rate the 100mm canon as the best, I was considering going to the 150mm sigma, but have other lens issues right now, this will have to wait :)
If I was in your shoes, I'd buy it, retains value as well. Not that the sigma won't but like dark star the reviews just seem to make it the right choice.
 
I've the 105 Sigma (old non DG version) and it a great lens. Never thought about swapping it.
Very sharp, nice colour definition.
Only problem with it is the focusing time (it extends about 2.5 inches), youy can restrict it to macro range or real life range, but it's still slow.

Saw a review of the updated 105 lens and it appears to be improved with coatings and wotnot.
 
I bought the Canon 100mm a little while ago, largely based on the recomendations and shots I've seen from everyone here, and I have to say I'm SO pleased I bought it. It's a fantastic lens, when you get a photo you've taken with it up on your screen and see the astonishing detail it captures you'll know you made the right choice :thumbs: Oh and of course I bought mine from Kerso too - he am da man!
 
Well, if you really dont want a second hand 60mm......... ;)

The Canon is worth the money and, as mentioned previously, does not extend when focussing (very important when getting close!!!). You'll want to put a UV filter on immediately - the front element is almost exposed and worried me til i had it covered by a filter!

Because it doesn't extend, you do drop from 100mm to 93 / 94mm when focussing to infinity from macro - this is harly noticeable and not a concern
 
my sigma's awesome...but then the IQ from either canon or sigma 100-ish macros is pretty similar. macros tend to be very sharp anyway so which ever you have will be fine. future proofing...yes I see the point, but so far no probs reported on the 105 ex dg
 
I agree that the internal focusing makes a difference when working close. If you have the cash, go for the canon. If you are fighting between them because of cash then the Sigma will produce equally stunning shots.

Both are superb lenses.
 
Thanks for posing this question Photostar :thumbs:

I have been wondering about the merits of this lens myself and you saved me the effort.:wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top