Most of you that have read my previous threads know that I'm getting ready to get some more camera gear.
I am still leaning towards the 100mm Macro but have a question about the lens. When you get in super close (1 foot I think is the closest you can get with this lens) and take a photo that is your 1:1 image right?
So if I were to back off of my subject, say it was larger than full frame at the minimum focusing distance, what would my image quality be there? I know the 100mm macro that canon puts out is supposedly great for this extreme close-ups but how does it fair if I was taking photos of a larger flower and backed far enough away from it to get the entire flower in the frame?
I ask this because I really do love the idea of taking photos of those super small critters and the smaller wildflowers here in the NC mountains but will I be able to photograph the larger flowers, such as a Yellow or Pink Ladyslipper, with the entire flower in the frame? Will that image be crisp?
How about if I wanted to take a landscape shot with the macro? What image quality would that yield?
I have a 100 f2.8 L Macro, it is the original non-usm version and I hardly use it for macro work, instead it is one of my sharpest landscape lenses, and really great for multi image stitched panos :-)
Posted by Buck Ward on January 27, 2008 at 11:13 PM
You can use the macro lens as a regular 100mm lens. There shouldn't be any loss of image quality with objects farther than the minimum focusing distance.
Posted by Bill Fach on January 27, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Kevin: I have a Minolta 100 macro that is probably the sharpest lens in my bag. I rarely use it for macro because I'm completely hooked on my 200 but anytime I need anywhere close to that focal length for portraits, landscapes, etc. it is the first lens out of the bag. True macro lenses tend to have highly corrected optics and are extremely sharp at every distance. One disclaimer; when used as a portrait lens I often have to do some softening in PS or else I get an exquisite rendition of every zit and nose hair.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 28, 2008 at 6:16 AM
I have the Canon 100/2.8 USM Macro lens and like others, it is my favorite lens. It is razor sharp at all distances and the USM focuing makes it very useful for other non-macro uses.
Posted by Mike Brown on January 28, 2008 at 7:21 AM
Just so happens that the last entry in my journal was about turning your macro around and shooting larger subjects for a change.
You can see a couple of landscape images there using the macro.
I must say, ... that lens has been my real money maker for the past several seasons!
http://macroartinnature.wordpress.com/
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on January 28, 2008 at 7:48 AM
My 100mm Macro is probably the 2nd most used lens in my collection. As a macro lens it is fantastic. Recently I have been shooting wildlife & landscapes with it too.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=87617&b=up&st=0&la=29&ph=13&sid=1552&u=1552
Now I just have to decide if I need to get a tripod collar and hood right now or wait. I'm probably going to get the hood for sure. The tripod collar though....not so sure about that one.
Posted by Ed Cordes on January 28, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Another vote for the 100 f2.8 macro being one of the sharpest lenses - and most useful. It is a great flower lens as well as landscape lens. The lens hood is a plus for all but very close macro where it tends to get in the way - especially when using flash. However, for standard flowers and landscapes I believe it is a must.
RE the tripod collar - forget it. It is not necessary on this lens and is terribly expensive.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 28, 2008 at 11:49 AM
If you are going to do a lot of macro work, I would have to disagree with Ed's advice on the tripod collar. I tend to believe that for macro, the collar is also a necessity for quick changes in orientation.
If the lens will be used largely as a landscape/portrait/big objects lens and only occasionally as a macro lens, then the lens collar is not as important.
For what it might be worth, the Canon 100 mm, with lens collar, will cost you just as much as the Sigma 150 macro, which already includes the collar. If you are seriously plan to do a lot of insect, small animal and close macro work, you may want to take a closer look at this lens. It accepts teleconvertors, is fast, and has more working distance. It also reaches 1:1 without additional equipment and is extremely well regarded.
If I buy the Sigma 150mm from Sigmaforless.com does it only have the 1 year warranty? I don't see anything about the extended three year warranty that is posted on Adorama and B and H Photo.
This should be the last question I think!!
I'm really leaning towards the Sigma right now, I just don't like the fact that the Canon doesn't already come with the collar and hood, doesn't make sense to me. It seems like they are making the lens look more affordable than it really is.
Thanks!!
Posted by David Bostedo on January 28, 2008 at 11:17 PM
The 1-year warranty makes it sound like a grey market lens. Doing some quick googling, it sounds like Sigma4Less tends to sell grey market, hence the lower price. B&H and Adorama tend to carry both - so you'll be able to get the USA version with the 3-year warranty. If you get a grey market warranty, it's not actually a Sigma warranty - it's warranted by the seller. So Sigma won't touch it. Here's a link to Adorama's info if you haven't seen it.
They are just about the same price at B&H and Adorama when you add up the tripod collar and hood on the canon lens.
The one thing that is holding me back from Sigma is the slow autofocus. I've read that the Canon focuses much faster. Does this hold true??
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 29, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I haven't used the Canon 100 mm, but I can tell you that the autofocus on the Canon 180 is glacially slow. Usually, it is faster to focus manually. Macro lenses are notoriously slow for their autofocus speed, simply because the elements inside have to travel far more to focus. On my Canon, to go from 1:1 to 1:2 requires turning the focussing ring almost as much as going from 1:2 to infinity. I'll grant you, though, that some models and brands are slower than others.
But having said that, for macro work, usually you'll want to manually focus anyway. The sensor point in macro almost never is where you want it.
Autofocus may be more of an issue if the lens will be heavily used to shoot action. Even for portrait work, it should be fast enough. When I have used the 180 for large birds at reasonable distances, should as standing geese from 15 steps away, it is good enough.
If, as you said, you will be doing a lot of insect and small animal work with the lens, the tradeoff for the extra focal length and working distance will probably outweigh a slower autofocus speed.
With any macro lens, you are buying a manual focus lens that can occasionally be used as an autofocus lens if needed.
I don't think I'm going to be able to afford the 180....right now it's only between the Canon 100 and the Sigma 150. The 180 is about 200 bucks more so it's not in my current budget.
If I outfit the Canon with the collar and hood it's about the same price as the 150.
On Juza's review of the 180 he said that the body scratches easily and that if it gets wet the water spots ruin the paint on the lens' exterior. I am figuring that this will be the same on the 150. I am not too crazy about that either.
Posted by Barry Siegel on January 29, 2008 at 11:16 PM
I've got the Canon 100 macro with the Canon tripod ring and a generic rubber hood. It's a great lens, but if I were buying today, I think I would go with the Sigma 150. The build quality of the Sigma is reportedly not as good, but probably good enough if not abused. The longer focal length is nice, but is does weigh a bit more. Really can't go wrong with either.
Discussion
15 repliesI am still leaning towards the 100mm Macro but have a question about the lens. When you get in super close (1 foot I think is the closest you can get with this lens) and take a photo that is your 1:1 image right?
So if I were to back off of my subject, say it was larger than full frame at the minimum focusing distance, what would my image quality be there? I know the 100mm macro that canon puts out is supposedly great for this extreme close-ups but how does it fair if I was taking photos of a larger flower and backed far enough away from it to get the entire flower in the frame?
I ask this because I really do love the idea of taking photos of those super small critters and the smaller wildflowers here in the NC mountains but will I be able to photograph the larger flowers, such as a Yellow or Pink Ladyslipper, with the entire flower in the frame? Will that image be crisp?
How about if I wanted to take a landscape shot with the macro? What image quality would that yield?
Thanks!
You can see a couple of landscape images there using the macro.
I must say, ... that lens has been my real money maker for the past several seasons!
http://macroartinnature.wordpress.com/
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=87617&b=up&st=0&la=29&ph=13&sid=1552&u=1552
The large print is awesome.
Now I just have to decide if I need to get a tripod collar and hood right now or wait. I'm probably going to get the hood for sure. The tripod collar though....not so sure about that one.
RE the tripod collar - forget it. It is not necessary on this lens and is terribly expensive.
If the lens will be used largely as a landscape/portrait/big objects lens and only occasionally as a macro lens, then the lens collar is not as important.
For what it might be worth, the Canon 100 mm, with lens collar, will cost you just as much as the Sigma 150 macro, which already includes the collar. If you are seriously plan to do a lot of insect, small animal and close macro work, you may want to take a closer look at this lens. It accepts teleconvertors, is fast, and has more working distance. It also reaches 1:1 without additional equipment and is extremely well regarded.
This should be the last question I think!!
I'm really leaning towards the Sigma right now, I just don't like the fact that the Canon doesn't already come with the collar and hood, doesn't make sense to me. It seems like they are making the lens look more affordable than it really is.
Thanks!!
They are just about the same price at B&H and Adorama when you add up the tripod collar and hood on the canon lens.
The one thing that is holding me back from Sigma is the slow autofocus. I've read that the Canon focuses much faster. Does this hold true??
But having said that, for macro work, usually you'll want to manually focus anyway. The sensor point in macro almost never is where you want it.
Autofocus may be more of an issue if the lens will be heavily used to shoot action. Even for portrait work, it should be fast enough. When I have used the 180 for large birds at reasonable distances, should as standing geese from 15 steps away, it is good enough.
If, as you said, you will be doing a lot of insect and small animal work with the lens, the tradeoff for the extra focal length and working distance will probably outweigh a slower autofocus speed.
With any macro lens, you are buying a manual focus lens that can occasionally be used as an autofocus lens if needed.
If I outfit the Canon with the collar and hood it's about the same price as the 150.
On Juza's review of the 180 he said that the body scratches easily and that if it gets wet the water spots ruin the paint on the lens' exterior. I am figuring that this will be the same on the 150. I am not too crazy about that either.