Does anyone have any ideas on this? I'm finally ready to get a pure macro lens, and I can't figure out which of these to get.
I'm willing to spend the money for either the 100L or the Sigma, but don't know which to get.
I like the idea of the "L" build; it's tough and long-lasting. I've never had a Sigma, so don't know about the build on them. I'll manually focus, so the "hunting" you hear about doesn't bother me. I would like to able to try hand-holding it, too, but I know a tripod will be necessary for quality.
I'll use it outdoors for flowers, bugs and mini landscapes.....
The Canon 100 mm Macro lenses have long had a reputation for extreme sharpness and great contrast. The Canon will cost more than the Sigma, but I believe the results will be much better.
I had the sigma 150 and never was really that happy with it, i wasnt able to get the fine detail that i wanted in macro. I than got the 180 canon it is the sharpest L lens that i own. I recommend the 180 over the 100 the extra reach is very helpful in the maco world. It is also a great midrange nature lens the detail is far better than the mid range zooms and works good with the 1.4 converter which you cant use on the sigma.
As just a blanket recommedation, if you are going to shoot insects, get the longest macro you can afford. The extra working distance to not spook your subject makes a big difference.
The other advantage to the longer macro is background control. An object 3 mm across on a sensor with a 100 will be about 5.5 mm across on the sensor with the Canon 180. The net effect is that when you combine all of the objects sitting in the background, they blur together much more naturally than would be the case with the 100 and especially with a 50-60mm macro. Nice clean backgrounds are much harder to achieve with a 100 than with a 180-200.
Also, one more note. DOF at 1:1 with a 100 is the same as the DOF at 1:1 with a 180 or 200mm. What makes the difference is again, background control. That shouldn't be your deciding factor in purchasing the lens.
The Canon 100 does not come with a tripod collar, so budget for that. You really do need one - going from horizontal to vertical by adjusting the ballhead will change the composition significantly and by using an L bracket runs the serious risk of spooking the subject, especially give how close you will be.
Officially, you can't use a teleconvertor with the Canon 100's. What you can do, though, is place an extension tube between the lens and the teleconverter. This will give enough clearance between the outermost element of the converter and the innermost element of the 100 macro to allow it to work.
Genny, I own the 100mm L IS now, used to have the first 100mm. Both are crazy sharp, but the L is worth it IMO because the optics are a smitch better, and because of the Hybrid IS which truly gives you 4 stops as it claims. I shoot video with it too and it's like having a SteadyCam, lol. But if you plan on doing all tripod work then obviously the IS is of no help, and like Dan said, the 180mm gets you a much longer working distance. But, you might find (as I do) that the 100mm on your camera body is a blast of a lens even for walking around, candid shots, headshots, you name it. With that IS and an ISO of 1600 you can shoot at night with a streetlamp-only, handheld. The 100mm L is just a fun lens in addition to the macro capability, you wouldn't be disappointed. That lens and some Kenko tubes would get you that extra distance for insects. Canon makes tubes too for a lot more money (they give you one, Kenko gives you three stackables); I'm fairly sure Kenko's internal air is L-quality based on the MTF charts I've seen.
I owned both the 180L and the 100 IS L. to shoot butterflies. The problem is if you shoot handheld the 180 has no IS and an early version of auto focus which is pretty much worthless. So if you shoot on a tripod and manual focus the 180 is great. I loved the 100 L for super IS and extremely fast auto focus. With the 100 I usually shot at F 5.6 to 8 for butterflies and DOF was perfect to blur out the background. You can see my images that I have posted to date. I have heard the Sigma is very sharp also...both the new 150 and 180. BTW I use the RRS L plate so horizontal to vertical is not an issue for the 100 L.
This is one for the Sigma 150mm crowd.
Optics are equal, but you will get better build quality with the Canon.
As to whether or not you believe the Canon's sharper?
Well, the operator's the deciding factor 99.9% of the time in this regard IMO.
I have used the Sigma 150mm for over seven years, and it does show some signs of wear on its exterior finish..
The new 150mm from Sigma now has IS, so it might help you a bit with handheld work also.
I am a nikon user and cannot comment on the canon lens quality but I own the Tamron 180 mm f3.5 macro lens it is also 1:1 and sharp. Mike Moats also uses this lens. rent and try
Actually, the Sigma 150 I think may be sharper than the Canon 180 (to which I have a build a private shrine to worship it ).
I find that the 180 is almost impossible to handhold for macro work - it is too front heavy, even with a pro body or leower body with a battery pack. The occasional handheld not at 1:1, okay but not as a normal working practice.
Definitely reread Paul's comments about the 100 L with IS. He makes some good points about using the lens as a good walkabout lens or for other non-macro purposes.
FWIW, my 180 macro was for years my primary landscape lens - I still don't intuitively understand how to shoot with a 17 - 40 on a full frame body. It is work for me.
Extension tubes can be any brand but make sure they have a metal based body. There are a few really, really cheap ones that are an all-plastic construction which simply aren't up to the task. Paul's Kenko recommendation is good as well.
Last, we are in many respects a golden age for macro lenses. Assuming you stay with a major manufacturer (camera brands plus Sigma, Tokina and Tamron), there really isn't a bad one on the market right now. You will be choosing between different levels of excellent rather than excellent vs very good.
Thanks for replies, everyone. I hadn't really thought about the Canon 180. I had read about the difference between the Canon 100 and the 100 "L", and some sources definitely think it's worth it to buy the "L". I already have a set of Kenko extension tubes (thanks to my sweet husband ).
I think it's great that it's a choice "between different levels of excellent"! ......I'm leaning towards the Canon 100 "L"..........
Genny, I recently switched from the canon 100 to the 100L and there's a noticeable improvement in sharpness. I will second comments above with respect to thinking about how you will use this lens. I do a lot of flowers and some insects at magnifications between 1:2 and nearly 2:1 (using Kenko extension tubes) and the 100L is great. However, I often find myself wishing for a longer lens when I'm stalking dragonflies and butterflies, and while a 150 or 180 will help, it's not a complete solution. With my film Olympus system, I used a 300mm on a bellows for the more sensitive dragonflies and butterflies
Discussion
10 repliesI'm willing to spend the money for either the 100L or the Sigma, but don't know which to get.
I like the idea of the "L" build; it's tough and long-lasting. I've never had a Sigma, so don't know about the build on them. I'll manually focus, so the "hunting" you hear about doesn't bother me. I would like to able to try hand-holding it, too, but I know a tripod will be necessary for quality.
I'll use it outdoors for flowers, bugs and mini landscapes.....
--P
The other advantage to the longer macro is background control. An object 3 mm across on a sensor with a 100 will be about 5.5 mm across on the sensor with the Canon 180. The net effect is that when you combine all of the objects sitting in the background, they blur together much more naturally than would be the case with the 100 and especially with a 50-60mm macro. Nice clean backgrounds are much harder to achieve with a 100 than with a 180-200.
Also, one more note. DOF at 1:1 with a 100 is the same as the DOF at 1:1 with a 180 or 200mm. What makes the difference is again, background control. That shouldn't be your deciding factor in purchasing the lens.
The Canon 100 does not come with a tripod collar, so budget for that. You really do need one - going from horizontal to vertical by adjusting the ballhead will change the composition significantly and by using an L bracket runs the serious risk of spooking the subject, especially give how close you will be.
Officially, you can't use a teleconvertor with the Canon 100's. What you can do, though, is place an extension tube between the lens and the teleconverter. This will give enough clearance between the outermost element of the converter and the innermost element of the 100 macro to allow it to work.
Optics are equal, but you will get better build quality with the Canon.
As to whether or not you believe the Canon's sharper?
Well, the operator's the deciding factor 99.9% of the time in this regard IMO.
I have used the Sigma 150mm for over seven years, and it does show some signs of wear on its exterior finish..
The new 150mm from Sigma now has IS, so it might help you a bit with handheld work also.
I find that the 180 is almost impossible to handhold for macro work - it is too front heavy, even with a pro body or leower body with a battery pack. The occasional handheld not at 1:1, okay but not as a normal working practice.
Definitely reread Paul's comments about the 100 L with IS. He makes some good points about using the lens as a good walkabout lens or for other non-macro purposes.
FWIW, my 180 macro was for years my primary landscape lens - I still don't intuitively understand how to shoot with a 17 - 40 on a full frame body. It is work for me.
Extension tubes can be any brand but make sure they have a metal based body. There are a few really, really cheap ones that are an all-plastic construction which simply aren't up to the task. Paul's Kenko recommendation is good as well.
Last, we are in many respects a golden age for macro lenses. Assuming you stay with a major manufacturer (camera brands plus Sigma, Tokina and Tamron), there really isn't a bad one on the market right now. You will be choosing between different levels of excellent rather than excellent vs very good.
I think it's great that it's a choice "between different levels of excellent"! ......I'm leaning towards the Canon 100 "L"..........