Sigma or Canon Macro Lens

[nmywrx]

I am dying to get a macro lens for my Digital Rebel so I can get some crazy close-ups like I see posted around here. Right now I am trying to decide between the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and the Sigm Macro 150mm F2.8 EX DG HSM.

Can those of you using these lenses give me some feedback on things you like and dislike about your paticulare lens? Hopefully this will help me make a tough decision. Picking the right lens is always a struggle for me.

Thanks in advance.

 

[BlueCorn]

Both are excellent lenses. The 150mm gives you some additional working room between your lens and your subject. The 150 is definitely larger and heavier. That's a concern if you want to use if off of a tripod.

 

[nmywrx]

I thought I read somewhere that the Canon 100mm macro's working distance is about 6". It seems a lot of people use this lens.

Do they have to move their subjects closer to the glass to get some of these shots I have been seeing? That seems like a lot of trouble. That is why I am leaning toward the Sigma. I have a tripod and could work off that.

The only down side to that is all my other lenses are Canon, and I've always thought of Sigma lenses as being a lesser quality lens.

 

[BlueCorn]

That's a minimum distance. It doesn't mean that you have to be 6" away to make the lens work.

 

[Blazer88]

The minimum focusing distance is where you'll get the maximum magnification. I've owned both the Canon 100mm F/2.8 and Sigma 150mm F/2.8. Both lenses are equally sharp and the only real difference I noitce is the working distance. I preferred the Sigma over the Canon for macro's since I could get higher magnification with corals that are deeper in my tank, not everything is up close to the glass. I also bought the EF-S 60mm F/2.8 for tank shots since the Sigma has too much reach for general tank photography in my experience. If you could only get one lense I would pick the Canon 100mm.

 

[nmywrx]

For general tank shots I am using a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. Do you still think I would be better served with the Canon 100mm?

 

[Blazer88]

I think the 100mm would be much better. The 17-85mm is a slow lens at F/4-5.6. I find myself shooting fish below F/4 to get a fast enough shutter without having to go up to ISO1600, the 100mm will be quick enough to keep a relatively low ISO and large enough aperture. The 17-85 would probably work fine for full-tank shots though.

 

[nmywrx]

That's kinda what I figured. I have had good luck with Canon lenses. The 100mm is cheaper and lighter, and more of a carry around macro. Its probably the best choice for a first macro lens.

Thanks for the help.

 

[voodude]

I don't (didn't) take many photos and used a Canon PwrShot SD700IS (4x up to 15x internal) but also wanted some of the neat closeup stuff. I bought a Rebel Eos XTI and tried it. The next day I got the 100mm f/2.8 USM and absolutely love it. Still figuring out all the proper settings, but on Auto it's very simple. I notice that if I get closer than about 1 1/2 to the glass, it will not fire as it gets confused. You can use it freehand, but MUCH better pics with tripod. My brother is a professional photog working for a paper and has his own "Natural Images" business, and he said I made the best choice. Tamron makes the same lens but the quality of the pics is not as good. Tood luck and happy photo-taking .. Here's a sample

It's one of the baby octopi I caught and put in a glass jar. Pic taken from about 6" from the jar. Octo was about the size of the pinkey-nail in a 3 month old baby!

 

[voodude]

Let's try the photo again .. made it smaller

 

[nmywrx]

Voodude,

I'm assuming you didn't enlarge or crop the octupus pic?

 

[voodude]

Just uploaded it in a smaller size .... thought it was pretty amazing

 

[louist]

Either lens would be fine. Both lenses are very similar in their weaknesses and strengths. Sigma/Tamron/Canon/Nikon all manufacture great macro lenses, the key is to buy one and start shooting rather than pondering about it

The minimum working distance, as pointed out by the others, is the distance at which you get max magnification. This being 1:1 or 1x for these macro lenses. Now, keep in mind that the min. focusing distance is measured from the subject to the sensor/film, not to the front lens element. Thus, you must also take into consideration the lens' length.

I use the 180 macro for all my macro photography and can't find anything bad to say about it.