Macro lens - suggestions?

Witch

Witch

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,731
Name
Robyn
Edit My Images
No
Well I'm rapidly coming around to the idea that I am going to be spending some cash on one of these in due course! I figure I may as well start the ball rolling by getting some hints and suggestions from those of you on here who use them - what have you bought? What were your specific reasons for going for that lens over the others available? I intend to use the lens mainly for floral stuff - I don't "do" insects for the most part - maybe the occasional Bee but that's about it.....

Candidates at the moment are:

Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG
Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di
Canon 100mm f2.8 USM

PLEASE don't suggest Canon L glass - much as it would be nice I can neither afford nor justify it on this purchase! I'm also not willing to buy anything which is a digital only fit - with the hope in my mind that I may at some stage upgrade along the 1-series route I'm only going to buy upgrade-proof gear now.

The main question in my mind is IQ - is the Canon appreciably better that the (EX rated) Sigma? There is a noticeable difference in price having looked on Camera Price Buster - although that's reduced slightly at the current time by the fact that Canon are doing £20 cashback and presumably Kerso might be able to come up with a user-friendly price too - I've not checked with him yet. I'm a little wary of the Tamron being the shortest of the three - but considering I'm mainly using it for flowers does that matter? Likewise do I really need the USM of the Canon? I take it the Sigma isn't HSM?

:help:
 
I don't use any of those (I got the Sigma 150mm for the extra reach). All 3 are meant to be good lenses - personally if I was buying around the 100mm area I would probably get the Tamron 90, its meant to be super-dooper sharp.
 
I am happy enough with my canon 100mm 2.8 usm.
I bought it because the reveiws were good
 
Good read here on just those three lenses.

CLICKY
 
The last price I got from Ian was £306 for the 100mm macro.
Have researched this to death still without spending, but have come to the conclusion that the 100mm Canon is the best option. Sems to have hit a 5 star review across most of the mags I have read.
It is the oldest of the 3 lenses I think.

Here's my gospel for Canon lens reviews...
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Key also for me is that the canon lens does not extend, unlike the sigma, this may help for keeping that little bit more quiet - maybe ?

ALso check out the Sigma review from the same site ...

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-F-2.8-EX-DG-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Key paragraphs for me are:

You are likely considering one of the other available Macro lenses if you are researching the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens. The two that most directly compare have been mentioned above - The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens and Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens. The Sigma is at least as well built as the Canon and Tamron. It is similar in sharpness to the Canon and a slightly better than the Tamron. The Sigma has less vignetting than the Canon but is similar to the Tamron. It is also has the lowest price.

Even thought they are all 1:1 macro lenses, these lenses have different working distances at their 1:1 settings. The Canon, even though it has a slightly shorter focal length, has a longer working distance (6"/150mm) than the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens (4.8"/122mm). The Tamron has the shortest 1:1 working distance (3.8"/96.5mm).

To me, Canon's USM autofocus system is easily worth the price differential alone (even including the optional lens hood). Add to that the better flare performance, better bokeh, a fixed physical length ... and you have my opinion. My second choice would be more of a toss-up. The Tamron has better AF accuracy, better flare control and a one-step MF system.

Hope this helps... Neil
 
Hmmmm...definately some food for thought there - thanks chaps! I shall have a look at the links posted this evening. Keep those opinions coming though!
 
oh my tuppence worth, the sigma 105, sharp as a tack and very good VFM, slow autofocus but i dont use auto for macro so that doenst matter. got some sample pics if u would like to look?
 
A friend of mine came over at the weekend - it was an opportunity to use the x2 and x1.4 TC's on a variety of lenses and bodies. Anyway, the point of this ramble is that we noticed a distinctly yellow colour caste on the Sigma 70-200 2.8 compared to the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS and the Canon 300 4 IS. This was obviously food for thought so i then checked the other Sigmas i have and yes, their optics do generate a 'hue' to say the least and AF is noticeably slower.

Anyhow - my personal recommendation is the Canon 100mm - sharp as Freddies Fingers and quick on AF given it ranges from 1:1 to infinity!!!

I also wish I had the 180mm L but can't justify it as i rarely use my 100mm. :(
 
I've had the older version of the sigma 105 (non DG) for years now.
Slow as a dog with 2 legs to focus (unless the range is limited) other than that its a great lens.
 
oldgit said:
I've had the older version of the sigma 105 (non DG) for years now.
Slow as a dog with 2 legs to focus (unless the range is limited) other than that its a great lens.
Click to expand...

I think I have that same version. I must admit to rarely using it, but when used recently on a floral studio shoot (with film), the results were great (fellow students also used it for portrait studio work with very pleasing results). I haven't experienced any problems with focussing as I use manual with Macro. DOF is tiny! I got a 2nd hand Ebay lens a good few years back, and for the money, it's been well worth it (despite not using it very often).
 
Just bought the Sigma 105mm DG on this very forums and can confirm its AF is quite noisy and very slow, but for macro stuff you'll be focusing manually anyway. Borrowed a Canon 60mm macro and it was much quicker and quieter so if Canon are consistent the 100mm should follow suit.
 
A vote for the Canon 100mm 2.8 from me. Every time I use it I'm astonished with the sharpness and detail it's capable of reproducing. Fast AF and a joy to use :)
 
Hmm I was discussing this very issue with a friend last night....glad this thread came up!! :thumbs:
 
Funnily enough, Ive been looking at the same thing, I've used extension tubes on my standard lenses, most usually my Canon 100mm f2.

What advantages am I going to get with a macro lens, or am I missing something obvious?
 
Well after using my 50mm lens with an adapter at the front and me having to be about 1" away from the subject and to focus properly I really have to move the whole camera closer and further way instead of the focusing ring, I would hope a macro lens would enable me to get further away thus not making everything fly away... (well the flowers dont!!) and also give me a tad more dof. I know the dof on a macro lens is shallow............but this thing I use is wafer thin!!!

But if you already have a canon 100mm lens id have thought that problem would already be half solved for you.
 
Yup, janice, but the 100mm only goes down to 0.9m, a bit far away. That's why I use the tubes. But will I get more DOF with the macro?
 
I think we need someone who has both the Canon macro AND the tubes so they can compare the two.

Any takers???
 
I agree absolutely Janice, if anyone near me in Scotland has a macro, give me a shout and we'll get together. Interesting that no one seems to come up with an answer.
 
I guess as far as Witch's first question goes the answer is.......if you have the money then go for the canon... if not then either of the other two would be fine...seems they are much of a muchness.
 
Yes, but my point is why bother if you've got tubes?

They're a lot cheaper!!
 
Just got a Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG myself and am very pleased with it, but I would expect the Canon with USM to be quieter in operation, although manual focusing would probably be used in most cases.
 
Well I hope yours are not like mine, one is TWICE the size of the other!!-and they join together!! WOW!!:clap: :D
 
George said:
Well I hope yours are not like mine, one is TWICE the size of the other!!-and they join together!! WOW!!:clap: :D
Click to expand...

I think Id be in hospital if they were, George!!! :D :lol:
 
The Tamron, Sigma and Canon Macro lenses produce much the same image quality. The main difference is how the lenses operate. Both the Sigma and Tamron extend during focus/magnification which makes them harder to use.

I would personally pay the extra £70ish and get the Canon 100mm lens.

Janice said:
I think we need someone who has both the Canon macro AND the tubes so they can compare the two.

Any takers???
Click to expand...
I have both :)
I shot this to show the difference between 1:1 and all the tubes (2:1)

macro-example.jpg
 
I think yoiuve missed out the ONE thing that George was after........ a normal canon 100mm lens with the tubes so he could see if he needs a macro lens!
 
-or in the circus, Janice!!

Seriously though, I'm interested in SDK's take on this.
What I'm trying to compare is the macro without any extension tubes and the standard 100mm F2 lens (min focusing 0.9m) with tubes.

Hope this is clear!

George
 
Sorry, a bit slow there with my post,, and yes, Janice, you're correct.
 
Can anyone tell me - I assume the Sigma comes with Sigma's standard soft case & lens hood? Does the Canon have a hood with it? Or not?
 
I dont use those lens pouches they wont fit into the camera bag with them on really. Or perhaps it just me...as usual!:D
 
Janice said:
I dont use those lens pouches they wont fit into the camera bag with them on really. Or perhaps it just me...as usual!:D
Click to expand...

Nah - not just you Janice, I don't use them either! It's the hood I'm more concerned about TBH. Am wary of buying the Canon and then finding I've got to lay out more cash for a hood.
 
Still no takers on our great challenge, Janice!! Has no one got this combination?
 
Witch said:
Can anyone tell me - I assume the Sigma comes with Sigma's standard soft case & lens hood? Does the Canon have a hood with it? Or not?
Click to expand...
The lens hood for the Canon is an extra £25. For macro stuff you generally won't use the hood as it blocks light/casts a shadow on your subject.


George said:
Still no takers on our great challenge, Janice!! Has no one got this combination?
Click to expand...
The Canon 100mm Macro lens has a min focus distance of 38cm so if I did the test it wouldn't be accurate.
Many people have a Canon 50mm F1.8 with the extension tubes which I think achieves close to 1:1 for around £120ish
 
I have just this very moment ordered the canon 100mm 2.8 macro lens from kerso. Main reasons for ordering were -

1. usm, especially usefull when shooting bugs as its near silent
2. the fact it doesnt extend when focussing as has been said will make it harder to use

3. great reviews and has been recomended to me by numerous people
 
Yes, I suspect that there are a few ways to skin this particular cat! I think for my current level of use, the 100 plus tubes will do fime, I just wondered if I was missing something.
Thanks for your comments, let us know how you get on,Witch!!
 
I am a relative newcomer to digital photography but splashed out on the Canon 100mm (from Kerso). I am very happy with the results and went for it mainly due to the reviews etc (as Cobras post). In the end the price wasn't that different to the Sigma which would have been my next choice.
 
Right then - time to give this some serious thought with the feedback above I think. Point taken regarding the issue with the hood - I can see the sense in that too.

I can honestly see the Canon getting the nod from me on this - I'll make sure I can get hold of a cashback voucher first I think (Unlikely to be a problem but you never know) and then get an up to date price from Ian. The quiet focussing is leading me in that direction - plus the fact that the Canon will hold its value better. I can't treally see me ever doing vast amounts of macro but I would like to feel I've got a sound bit of kit for when the urge takes me!

Cheers all for your help - I'll let you know! :thumbs:
 
Witch said:
Right then - time to give this some serious thought with the feedback above I think. Point taken regarding the issue with the hood - I can see the sense in that too.

I can honestly see the Canon getting the nod from me on this - I'll make sure I can get hold of a cashback voucher first I think (Unlikely to be a problem but you never know) and then get an up to date price from Ian. The quiet focussing is leading me in that direction - plus the fact that the Canon will hold its value better. I can't treally see me ever doing vast amounts of macro but I would like to feel I've got a sound bit of kit for when the urge takes me!

Cheers all for your help - I'll let you know! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

With regard to the cash back voucher its just a form to fill in online and then send the serial number to canon along with your printed off form. No vouchers for this round of cashback!! :clap:
 
Janice said:
I know the dof on a macro lens is shallow............but this thing I use is wafer thin!!!
Click to expand...

DoF is a function of magnification and aperture size. It doesn't matter how you achieve the magnification the DoF will be the same for a given aperture.

George, the main advantage of using a dedicated macro over the 100 f/2 + tube is that the you won't lose up to 2 stops of light. Also the focus ring on a macro gives a lot of fine control as you approach 1:1 and the optics will peform better as well.

AntC, forget about AF for bugs - 99.9% of the time it will hunt a lot and finally lock onto the wrong part of the bug leaving the eyes OOF :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top