 |
|
|
Ogrt48
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 96
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheaper than the Canon brand, just as sharp, great color and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy, slow AF but it's macro so you should be using MF anyways.
|
|
|
I bought this lens last Nov for my DRebel when I was looking for a true macro lens. I love this thing, it's $100 cheaper than the cannon but has just as great color, sharpness and contrast. The only negative thing about it is that the front extends when focusing, but you should be using MF anyways and moving you're camera back and forth to get focus. It's solid built with a sexy gold strip around the barrel.
I've dropped it a few times and it doesn't even scratch. Extremely slow AF, it'll hunt forever until it just gives up. Again, should be using MF anyways. It's a macro lens, not for sports.
This len also doubles for portraits great. I love this lens.
|
|
 Apr 20, 2006
|
|
Bigpikle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 107
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
value, image quality, finish
|
|
Cons:
|
slow focus, extending front element, MF setup
|
|
|
I've used this on a Canon 300D, 20D and now full frame on a 5D, and been very happy with the results on each.
The image quality is excellent and I regularly use it wide open in macro and non-macro situations, with no concerns. The bokeh is not great but not objectionable either.
The focus is slow and this is definitley not a lens for chasing moving subjects about, but if you use it correctly and dont expect it to instantly snap focus across huge differences in distance then you shouldn't have any problems - I tend to use it in MF anyway.
This is perhaps one fo the most annoying feature of the lesn - the MF ring. As others have commented it can be frustrating to use at times, and often I turn the MF ring to find it has 'popped' back to AF and I need to sometimes take my eye waway from the viewfinder to work out whats going on. But still not a major issue IMHO.
Highly recommended - good value vs Canon equivalent.
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2006
|
|
emgvod
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 967
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good optical quality, small and light
|
|
Cons:
|
extending front element, hunts badly even by macro standards, screw on hood, general build quality, focus ring.
|
|
|
Bought this lens after reading the glowing reviews here. I have owned the Canon 100 USM Macro and I also currently have the EF-S 60 Macro. I sold the Canon 100 because I thought the 60 would be a better match on my 20D but found the lack of background compression from the shorter focal length less pleasing. So having already had the Canon 100 Macro I decided to give the Sigma 105 Macro a try.
I don’t think it’s a bad lens optically, though it is not as sharp as the EF-S 60 Macro (not many things are). Colors and contrast are fine.
What I did not like about the lens was the extending from element and the really bad AF hunting. Though I use MF much of the time, I do switch to AF quite often, even for macro shots. This thing is just horrible, even when compared to Canon’s 60 and 100. Also, it’s not only the hunting but the speed of AF even when it does find something to lock on to.
The screw on hood cannot be reversed in the bag and the focus ring is plain annoying. It’s like they tried to out think themselves when designing this thing.
I think that if you want good optical quality on a tight budget and can live with the hang-ups of this lens it will work just fine but for an extra $100 or so the Canon is at least as good optically (if not better) and a million times nicer to use with its “fast” (by macro standards) AF, awesome build quality, internal focusing, nice feel and not to mention resale price if you decide to dump it down the road.
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2006
|
|
Quentin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 75
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp from 1:1 to infinity; compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
non-HSM focus; slightly rough bokeh, screw-in hood a little irritating (why not a clip-on?).
|
|
|
I purchased ths lens to compliment the longer Sigma 180mm HSM Macro. The 105mm F2.8 (latest digitally optimised version) is a useful focal length on my Kodak 14nx ful frame camera, and not too long on my Kodak DCS 760.
I use it mainly for stock tabletop and macro shots, at which it excels. The Kodak 14nx is fussy about lenses, and this has to be just about the best of the lot on this body.
I really cannot fault its performance at all. If I had to be hyper critical, then I'd say the bokeh is not as nice as that from the 180 HSM or my 85mm F1.4 Nikkor. But for most purposes, this is not an issue.
There is simply no reason to spend more on the overpriced Nikkor equivalent, and I'm glad I didn't.
Top marks are in order for one of Sigma's finest.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2006
|
|
stelin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow to focus
|
|
|
I have had superb results with this lens, and despite being a Canon fan, I feel no need to trade it for the Canon equivalent. My only problem with it is the speed of focus which really means that any subject needs to be anaesthetised before taking it's photo.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2005
|
|
biggar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Dec 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $325.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Incredibly sharp, very easy to get used to, very economical versus Canon "L" series.
|
|
Cons:
|
Surfacing on lens seema to pick up a little lint - other than that, nothing yet.
|
|
|
Very, very nice lens. I have only had this lens for three days but find that I just love it. I'm now really torn about which one I will use as a walk about, the 18-50mm or the 105mm. I guess I’ll know after the Christmas shooting season. This lens seems to be very economical versus the Canon "L" Series.
The last time that I was into SLR photography (about 100 years ago) it seemed to m that Sigma was not a good name in lenses. If that was the case, when was it that they turned things around?
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2005
|
|
Sir Revalot
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp! So very very sharp! This lens stays on my Camera almost all the time now. Focal length is perfect for Portraits.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is a tad slow in lower-light and sometimes hunts if lens is in 'full' position (as opposed to 'limit') but I wasn't expecting fast AF on a Macro lens anyway.
Wish I had more magnification, but that's not a problem with the lens, just with me getting more into Macro Photography!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2005
|
|
Exposures
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome colors and clarity, very crisp. Superior construction
|
|
Cons:
|
Auto / manual focus selector
|
|
|
This lens is defenitely become one of my favorites. The pictures I get from this lens are just amazing. Yes autofocus is slow but by no means does it detract from the quality of the lens.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2005
|
|
froggynaan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Sep 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, Good working distance for insects
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocus is slow and noisy, Autofocus switch is cumbersome
|
|
I purchased the DG version of this lens from B&H and it arrived the next day. I couldn't wait to use it. The first great thing you notice about this lens is that it feels very solid.
Currently, I use it for anything from large flowers to miniscule insects. Here's a Jumping spider i caught with it: http://www.deviantart.com/view/22956361/ The long focal length is very useful (much more so than if I had chosen the Sigma 50mm Macro). Working distance is great for insects especially since the flash on the Rebel XT is tall enough to use even when focusing at 1:1 (about 6 inches from the lens barrel). So I don't yet need to buy a ringflash to shoot at F/16 at a decent shutter speed.
I also enjoy shooting medium sized flowers from about 1 meter away wide open, the bokeh is very nice (but not as creamy/smooth as I expected). Here's an example of the bokeh i'm talking about: http://www.deviantart.com/view/22870191/ The flowers just behind the plane of focus look like their edges have separated into multiple lines, rather than a smooth gradation.
Overall, I love this lens and can't wait to use it for portraits
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2005
|
|
thanks5050
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Royal Sharpness, wondeful colours (like a painter), lovely impressionistic bokeh, perfect macro work, light to carry in your bag.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF can be sometimes very slow and very noisy, and can search longtime, especially with poor light
|
|
|
Can someone fall in love with a lens which has surely some big cons?
Yes and not only for the price but most of all for the quality of image that you can obtain with this Sigma lens.
I use it on a Canon 20d and I own other two lenses (17-40 Canon L f4, Tokina 24-200), but the colours, the sharpness are even better than my L Lens (even of course the comparison should be made with the Canon EF 100mm f2, but I never used it) and obviously the gap with Tokina 24-200 is big like the ocean.
It is great for portraits, but I used it also for details shot during amateur reportages.
The image can be so extraordinary .. that they give you happiness and surprise at the same time (I print 8x12 and larger).
Even on a digital SLR Canon (1.6 factor) becomes a 168 mm, surely not a walkaround lens, it is my fav objective.
I used it also for macro work and it helped me to obtain my best photos.
The estending front element for me is not a problem.
Other people think that it has a great build quality and probably it has, but as I use two masterpiece of build quality like the Canon 17-40 L and the "tank" Tokina 24-200, I feel that the Sigma is more "plastic made" in comparison with other two, but nothing that really worries me!
On the contrary, it is a lighter lens, which - together with f2.8 - helps you in handheld shots.
I can only say "thanks Sigma for this product".
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2005
|
|
olivert
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Built, Great Feel, Sharp, Colour
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow and sometimes incorrect Focus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2005
|
|
Roisin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 51
|
|
Review Date: Jul 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Outstanding sharpness, lovely colour, sturdy build and great price.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF/MF clutch and occasional focus hunt - very easy to get used to though.
|
|
This was my first Sigma lens for the 20D. At just shy of $500AU dollars, this lens was more than three hundred dollars cheaper than the Canon equivalent. I have the later EX DG version. The build is sturdy, with smooth focus action. The lens is solid and very nice to use, the feel of the matte finish is nice also.
I really, really like this lens - initially, I was concerned about noisiness and AF issues, but not now. Motor noise is a bit louder than USM, but only by a little, and the noise is just 'different' to USM - I don't consider it a problem, and it doesn't bother me. AF hunting does occur, but it's not bad, and I am seeing less and less hunting as my technique and application use of the lens improves. Oddly enough, I did notice the lens hunted more when mounted on my 20D, as opposed to a fairly quick focus lock when mounted on my film EOS 100/Elan... 
Fussing with the AF/MF clutch is my only whinge - I got used to it quickly though, and now its operation is just second nature.
I have several metal hoods from my manual focus film SLR days, so the metal hood feels 'right' to me. I attach the hood to a Hoya filter I keep on this lens. I used to own a Hoya 77mm Ultra Slim filter, but it sacrificed itself protecting a lens, and I was left with the plastic Hoya lens cap which comes with that slim filter - that Hoya cap fits snugly over the end of the Sigma hood, which was a sweet discovery.
All in all, I would happily buy this lens again. The little bit of fuss you go through while using the lens is more than compensated for by the wonderfully sharp and contrasty images it will produce.
It's a lot of lens for not a lot of money - a wonderful deal and a wonderful lens which many EOS users enjoy. :D
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2005
|
|
MARTHIN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2005
Location: Brazil
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
SOLID BUILD, VERY SHARP. FANTASTIC
|
|
Cons:
|
SLOW FOCUS
|
|
|
VERY VERY GOOD LENSES
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2005
|
|
ocsurfer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: May 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $349.99
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid Build, Nice size to work with, Focus Limiting,Lens Hood, case
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is a bit slow but can be dealt with no problems. the way the hood attaches.
|
|
|
I li=ove the lense. No regrets purchasing it at all. I use it for Macros as well as closeups, portraits, and even some sports (prefocusing needed do to the slower AF). Build wise this thing is great! Optically superb in every aspect and super sharp. I can honestly highly recommned this lens to anyone making a choice on a Macro lens in this size range.
|
|
|
May 21, 2005
|
|
IraGraham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 622
|
|
Review Date: Apr 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice build, small compact size, nice finish, sharp A+++ optics.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little slower focusing then some lenses, especially Canon Ultrasonic lenses.
|
|
|
This is a great lens. It is actually as sharp as the famed Canon 135mm f 2.0. and it focuses much closer because of it being a macro lens. That says volumes about the quality of the optics. It is also a great value for the dollar. It is the one Sigma lens you must have. It is a great portrait lens as well.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2005
|
|
abargath
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
EXTREMELY good optically. Clever hood design. Autofocus extremely accurate but very slow.
|
|
Cons:
|
Awkward way to switch from manual focus to autofocus. Autofocus very slow and pretty useless unless target is stationary or slow moving.
|
|
|
Optically this lens is as sharp as they come. It produces awesome crisp pictures and there is nothing to complain about in that department. Autofocus is slow but very accurate and very good for macro work and portraits but useless in for example sports or chasing children around the house. It´s sharp even at f2.8 and has a good aperture range up to f45 where image quality suffers a little bit due to diffraction but you get good DOF for macro shots.
Actually I mostly used this lens with manual focus and just set the focus on one spot and then moved back and forth to get the target in focus.
I have no real complaints about this lens but I still sold it about a month ago and got the Canon 100mm macro lens. The reasons for this is that the contrast and colours didn´t look the same as my other lenses did (all Canon) and also I wanted a USM focus motor. The main reason I switched however is that I plan on getting the macro ring lite flash and use my flashes wirelessly as slaves and I didn´t want to purchase the Sigma ring flash.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
73
|
210571
|
Jan 12, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
92% of reviewers
|
$340.72
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.68
|
9.47
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
