With the summer approaching I am thinking of buying a macro lens so I can try some closeup flower/insect type photography.
Previously I have relied on my 70-200 F4 L or 300 F4 L combined with extension tubes for macro work but feel a true 1:1 macro lens would be beneficial, especially on the 5D.
Having done some research I quite like the look of the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. Other options are the Canon 100mm or the Sigma 180mm (the Canon 180mm is too pricey...)
I would appreciate any feedback or advice from forum members about choosing a macro lens. Is the Sigma 150mm a good choice or is there a better option?
Well Sean, for me its easy as I've only used and have the 150mm and I'm well happy. Fred Miranda reviews gives the canon 9.6, the sigma 9.8, its close but sigma wins which for all that snobbery out there is something special. It has longer reach which is prctically a bonus to.
That's my opinion.
I have used both the Tamron 90mm F2.8 Macro and the Canon EF 100mm F2.8USM. The tamron is really sharp but it does not have internal focussing meaning the front element moves in and out while focussing. Annoying, noisy and a major failing for jittery insects. The Canon is even sharper, very fast focussing and near silent. Plus its internally focussed. I can highly recommend the Canon. Would love the 180mm version, but OUCH! what a price!?
We've two of the Canon 180/3.5's and they are stunning lenses - as sharp as the 500/4 and with colour/contrast to match too. Definitely worth checking around for 2nd hand if you don't want to pay the "new" price. FWIW the EF180/3.5 will also happily take the 1.4x and 2x convertors. It's also a great portrait lens, and surprisingly fast at focusing which also means it's good at tracking moving objects - like bees and butterflies .
The Canon EF24-70/2.8 with extension tubes is capable of some stunning macro shots too
I have been using the Sigma 150 2.8 for a year now and am well pleased with it. It is very sharp, has quiet & fast focussing (though I tend to focus manually for macro) and represents excellent value for money. I used a Tamron 90 for years with my film cameras and liked it but the extra reach of the 150 is a real bonus.
Hi Sean I read a lens test in I think it was amateur photographer if you are after a 180mm get the Sigma it is optically as close to identical to the canons version at only half the cost I think, the only drawback if I remember right was the slow autofocus ? As if you would use autofocus for macro work, I do have one so I may be slightly biased but it is optically better than the nikkor 60mm which is reputedly one of the best macro's I also have this one is well.
Phillip.
Ps you can use the Sigma or canon 1.4 converter on it is well.
When you talk about these sorts of lenses there is simply no appreciable difference in image quality, they will all outresolve the sensor, the deciding factor is your final use.
Internal focusing is a must IMO, which is why I went for a Canon 100/2.8 for my studio close-up and macro work (my living), when conected to the 5D it is fantastic, however the 90-100 range IMO is too short for working in the field so my recomendation would be to go for either the Sigma 150 or the 180, both are very sharp and give good contrast (often overlooked), well built and give a good working distance.
My favourite is the 180 as it gives just that little bit extra working distance, and will work with the Canon 1.4x if you put an extension tube between the lens and converter without any loss of IQ.
For close-up/ low macro the DoF will be roughly the same at the same mag for any lens be it a 50mm macro or a 300 with tubes so the deciding factor is really the working distance and what you want to achieve....
Hope this helps, let me know if I can help in any way...
I have the Sigma 180 and it's my bestest friend EVER! Cracking value for money, I really can't fault it. I bought it before the 150 came on to the market ... I'm not sure how I'd choose between the two if I was buying now.
The 180 will give you that extra bit of working distance, which can be useful if you're snapping flightly butterflies/dragonflies/etc. ... or it can leave you with your face in a cow-pat if you're doing flowers and bigger stuff!
I use the Sigma 150 f2.8 and it is a lovely piece of hardware, solid build and just feels right in the hands lol. Image quality is easily up there with the best.
Hi Sean
I have just changed over from the Sigma 105 to the 150mm and although I not really used it it yet the focus is so much faster and quite, plus the extra distance is a real bonus.
I am still leaning towards the Sigma 150mm, or possibly the 180mm for the extra bit of reach. The Canon would be nice but having read several reviews the Sigma's seem to compare favourably and my wallet prefers the look of the Sigma's. I am impressed Nick has got two of the Canon's!
I noticed the Sigma's can't take the Canon 1.4x TC (but the Sigma 1.4x is OK ) but from Phil's comments sticking a short extension tube between the Canon converter and the lens will work nicely.
One advantage I see with the f2.8 150mm is the autofocus is a bit more sensitive with the 20D and 5D as it can utilise the cross-hair sensors with f2.8 lenses, but not with the f3.8 180mm. Of course it is scarilege to use Auto-Focus with a macro lens, but could be handy sometimes.
I expect to use it outdoors for flowers/insects and other static closeups, and also indoors for some static studio type work, macro and maybe portraits as well, so I want something versatile.
I shall check out some more online reviews and opinions, but if anyone else has got any first hand experience I would be interested in your views.
Yep, got two - bought the 1st one for my wife a few years back - had to get a 2nd one last year as I can't prise the 1st one out of her hands to use it . Check out 2nd hand prices of the Canon and you should find them in the region of £700. BTW, as with all Canon's L glass, the macro is built like a gunbarrel .
Regarding AF - maybe sacrelige for Macro, but the 180/3.5 is much more versatile than just macro - when you're used to shooting things and getting a "snap" focus on fast lenses, that AF speed does matter.
If you're looking to do flower closeups and inside studio stuff, then you might actually find 180/150mm a bit too long. You could try something like the 24-70 with extension tubes - works very well.
Thanks for the advice. I hadn't thought of trying extension tubes on the 24-70 but I will try it out, that would be a useful option when I go walking and want to carry the mimimum of kit.
I will also have a look around the 2nd hand websites for a Canon 180mm, £700 is getting a bit more acceptable for me. Although I don't recall seeing many in the past on the usual sites such as Mifsuds and Ffordes. I shall check around though.
Discussion
13 repliesWith the summer approaching I am thinking of buying a macro lens so I can try some closeup flower/insect type photography.
Previously I have relied on my 70-200 F4 L or 300 F4 L combined with extension tubes for macro work but feel a true 1:1 macro lens would be beneficial, especially on the 5D.
Having done some research I quite like the look of the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. Other options are the Canon 100mm or the Sigma 180mm (the Canon 180mm is too pricey...)
I would appreciate any feedback or advice from forum members about choosing a macro lens. Is the Sigma 150mm a good choice or is there a better option?
cheers
Sean
That's my opinion.
Tim
Ross Hoddinott did a review on it have a look
http://www.rosshoddinott.co.uk/articles.asp?ArticleID=12
I have used both the Tamron 90mm F2.8 Macro and the Canon EF 100mm F2.8USM. The tamron is really sharp but it does not have internal focussing meaning the front element moves in and out while focussing. Annoying, noisy and a major failing for jittery insects. The Canon is even sharper, very fast focussing and near silent. Plus its internally focussed. I can highly recommend the Canon. Would love the 180mm version, but OUCH! what a price!?
The Canon EF24-70/2.8 with extension tubes is capable of some stunning macro shots too
Sigma...who they????
I have been using the Sigma 150 2.8 for a year now and am well pleased with it. It is very sharp, has quiet & fast focussing (though I tend to focus manually for macro) and represents excellent value for money. I used a Tamron 90 for years with my film cameras and liked it but the extra reach of the 150 is a real bonus.
Malcolm
Phillip.
Ps you can use the Sigma or canon 1.4 converter on it is well.
When you talk about these sorts of lenses there is simply no appreciable difference in image quality, they will all outresolve the sensor, the deciding factor is your final use.
Internal focusing is a must IMO, which is why I went for a Canon 100/2.8 for my studio close-up and macro work (my living), when conected to the 5D it is fantastic, however the 90-100 range IMO is too short for working in the field so my recomendation would be to go for either the Sigma 150 or the 180, both are very sharp and give good contrast (often overlooked), well built and give a good working distance.
My favourite is the 180 as it gives just that little bit extra working distance, and will work with the Canon 1.4x if you put an extension tube between the lens and converter without any loss of IQ.
For close-up/ low macro the DoF will be roughly the same at the same mag for any lens be it a 50mm macro or a 300 with tubes so the deciding factor is really the working distance and what you want to achieve....
Hope this helps, let me know if I can help in any way...
All the best
The 180 will give you that extra bit of working distance, which can be useful if you're snapping flightly butterflies/dragonflies/etc. ... or it can leave you with your face in a cow-pat if you're doing flowers and bigger stuff!
I have just changed over from the Sigma 105 to the 150mm and although I not really used it it yet the focus is so much faster and quite, plus the extra distance is a real bonus.
Regards
Thanks all for the useful opinions and advice.
I am still leaning towards the Sigma 150mm, or possibly the 180mm for the extra bit of reach. The Canon would be nice but having read several reviews the Sigma's seem to compare favourably and my wallet prefers the look of the Sigma's. I am impressed Nick has got two of the Canon's!
I noticed the Sigma's can't take the Canon 1.4x TC (but the Sigma 1.4x is OK
One advantage I see with the f2.8 150mm is the autofocus is a bit more sensitive with the 20D and 5D as it can utilise the cross-hair sensors with f2.8 lenses, but not with the f3.8 180mm. Of course it is scarilege to use Auto-Focus with a macro lens, but could be handy sometimes.
I expect to use it outdoors for flowers/insects and other static closeups, and also indoors for some static studio type work, macro and maybe portraits as well, so I want something versatile.
I shall check out some more online reviews and opinions, but if anyone else has got any first hand experience I would be interested in your views.
Thanks again
cheers
Sean
Regarding AF - maybe sacrelige for Macro, but the 180/3.5 is much more versatile than just macro - when you're used to shooting things and getting a "snap" focus on fast lenses, that AF speed does matter.
If you're looking to do flower closeups and inside studio stuff, then you might actually find 180/150mm a bit too long. You could try something like the 24-70 with extension tubes - works very well.
Thanks for the advice. I hadn't thought of trying extension tubes on the 24-70 but I will try it out, that would be a useful option when I go walking and want to carry the mimimum of kit.
I will also have a look around the 2nd hand websites for a Canon 180mm, £700 is getting a bit more acceptable for me. Although I don't recall seeing many in the past on the usual sites such as Mifsuds and Ffordes. I shall check around though.
cheers
Sean