I am looking to add a macro to my arsenal and am trying to decide which way to go. Does anyone have any suggestions or comments regarding these two lenses: Canon EF 180mm 3.5L Macro USM and Sigma 180mm 3.5 EX DG APO Macro IF HSM.
Posted by Tom Webster on April 23, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Having owned both of those lenses at one time, the Canon is sharper than the Sigma by just a hair and is a bit better built. The Sigma does suffer from undercorrected chromatic aberrations which is why I sold that lens. Another lens for you to consider, however, is the Sigma 150mm f 2.8 macro lens. It is almost identical to the Canon 180mm in sharpness and is very well corrected for chromatic aberrations. The 150 is much lighter than the Canon, very well built, and will cost you 1/3 the price of the Canon. I am very picky about my macro images and I sold the Canon and bought the Sigma 150mm lens.
Posted by Mitch Erwin on April 23, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I'll second Tom's hype about the Sigma 150 2.8. Weight, sharpness are very good. I also use this lens quite a bit for other captures besides macro and have come out with excellent results.
I have the Tamron 180 mm macro - it is as sharp as my 100 Canon macro and is nearly equal to my 70-200 f2.8. I think it is a good buy for what you get but it is not build as robustly as the Canon 180 macro. And the auto-focus is not as good as the canon lens but I never use autofocus for macro anyways If you want to save a little cash this might be an option as well. Darwin
Discussion
3 replies