Macro Lens - Canon 100 or Sigma 105?

T

Tinkie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
443
Name
Tracey
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone,

I have been researching macro lens options and think one of these two will be what i am after. Not sure if many of you are likely to have tried both for comparison but your views on which option to choose and why would be gratefully received please. It will be used on either a 400d or 450d.

Many thanks,

Tracey
 
I have not used the sigma, but have the canon on a 450d and am amazed by the results. If this is your first ef lens, the quality difference is like night and day @ 100% compared to the stock lens.
 
Tinkie said:
Hi everyone,

I have been researching macro lens options and think one of these two will be what i am after. Not sure if many of you are likely to have tried both for comparison but your views on which option to choose and why would be gratefully received please. It will be used on either a 400d or 450d.

Many thanks,

Tracey
Click to expand...

I've had both :) the Canon is the better lens - has a longer Minimum working distance (distance from the end of the lens to subject) ,internal focusing, better colour rendition and is a lot faster focusing when not using it for macro, can be pickup up used from here for around £300ish
 
Thanks very much James and Paul for your prompt and helpful responses.

An early lead for the Canon option then!

Best wishes,

Tracey
 
Don't forget to budget for a flash, To get the best out of either lens (for macro) you will also need a flash as you'll be shooting small apertures to maximize DOFF
 
Agree about the Canon 100mm, its a great lens, pin sharp, fast focus, decent build quality with a nice weight to it, all the reasons I went for it over the competition.

First shot with the lens was of my watch, see sig below.
 
Last edited:
The canon is the better lens but the sigma is not far behind. I have seen stunning insect shots taken with this lens.
 
I have the canon and can highly recomend it, the colours and pic quaulity are amazing

spike
 
Both are very sharp lenses - the AF on the Canon is much faster and the fact that the barrel doesn't extend if a plus for shooting insects. I've owned both and honestly don't think there is anything in it for IQ though the new L version of the Canon is even better. Below are a couple of shots from the Sigma.

4190632050_de604846b4_b.jpg


4190586751_8bb6f9b387_o.jpg
 
I've had the Sigma and now have the Canon (the 100mm USM, non-L).

The image quality is very close; the Canon is very slightly better but I wouldn't say it's a big differentiator. The Sigma does have one big optical flaw though: it sometimes has unusual flare which presents as severe loss of contrast. It happens in situations that you might not except flare to happen. I guess it occurred in about 5% of the photos I took; none of the ones at close focus distances.

The build of both is similar: quite good but not brilliant.

The Canon has a slightly longer working distance (distance between the front of the lens and the subect). I think this is because the Sigma's front element is recessed whereas the Canon's is at the very front of the lens, meaning when you use the Sigma without the hood it effectively has half a hood built-in, but the Canon's glass it totally exposed without the hood. So the Canon does give you useful extra working distance, but you might find it nice to have the protection of the 'mini-hood' of the Sigma. Also, the Canon doesn't extend when focussing closely whereas the Sigma does. Some people find that to be a problem for photographing insects but I never did.

The biggest difference IMO, and the reason I switched, is the the autofocus. The Sigma uses a conventional motor which is slow and hunts a lot. For macro that's not a problem because you'll want to use manual focus anyway; at those distances even the slightest movement of the camera moves the subject out of the plane of focus. The Canon uses an ultrasonic motor which is a lot better for non-macro photography.

Overall, if you've got another fast lens of a similar focal length (like a 70-200 f2.8 or an 85 1.8) and so will only use this lens for macro, then the Sigma is almost as good. If you're going to use it for non-macro photography, then I think the Canon is worth the extra.
 
Last edited:
Thanks very much to you all for your advice; it is very much appreciated.

Good point about budgeting for a flash as well thank you; i had this on my wish list and if i thought choosing the lens was difficult that seemed the easy part once i started reseaching flash options. All part of the fun though isn't it!

Thanks again guys,

Tracey
 
Just ordered a Canon 100mm from Tesco. Thanks to the post in supplier bargains, i was able to use some Clubcard vouchers and got £80 off so very pleased!

Thanks again to everyone on this thread for their advice.
 
Last edited:
I ordered the Canon version at christmas for my father after looking at all the options and asking advice on here, after trying it out i knew i`d make the right choice. Its amazingly sharp and the bokeh looks fantastic if you happen to use it for a portrait.
 
Good to here you and your dad are pleased with it Mark. Really want it for macro but also read other reviews saying good for portrait as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top