texdr wrote:
Briefly, yes the lens is a little heavy (around 3lbs), it does seem to focus fairly quickly, and it is certainly hand-holdable for me. My main interests with my canon lens is shooting bugs and butterflies around my backyard.
Personally, I'd rather have the much lighter Tamron 180/3.5 for this. While I admire Sigma for their courage to produce it I think it's a step too long. My dream long macro lens is an even lighter and smaller 200/4 with OS and HSM.
RCicala wrote:
Tex and Imagemaster, thank you for posting these. It's an interesting lens, although I've only shot with it a couple of times. I found the OS was excellent but the weight surprised me a bit. Looking at your images I'm wondering if we're going to see copy-to-copy variation in this one. We only got 4 copies so I don't have much of a sample size, but one of them had to go straight back for being decentered. Might just be one of those things too. Most Sigma primes are pretty well built.
Note: My shots were with the Sigma 180 f3.5., not the new f2.8 version.
bemyzeke wrote:
Have you done AF calibration. Form the pictures you posted it seems to me that the focus is not on the subject.
I did not do calibration when I took those pictures. I agree with you that the focus was not on the subject. That was one of my frustrations. Could calibration have fixed my problems. Maybe. Or I could have sent it to Sigma and have them take a look at it.
In the end, I wasn't attached emotionally to the lens, wanted to return it while I could for a full refund, and will show a little more patience in my lens purchases next time and wait for the real experts to test the lens before I do.
I'm super satisfied with my 150 2.8 OS. I've had it about 6 months now. No issues whatsover, I'd buy it again. I don't need a 180mm particulary for $600 more.
I do not know who those people are, nor do I really care, however, their review is oddly written ( ESL ?), and their sample images are invariably way too soft even for a half decent macro lens used at "normal" focusing distances.
In #5 CA section, it says "When it comes to the longitudinal chromatic aberration it would be difficult to notice it even at the maximum relative aperture.", but the test image shows f/3.8. Is it a typo? I wish to see the test image @ f/2.8.
I was hoping that this lens would be good I love macro and have been considering a longer IS lens in addition to my 100L
I would do some controlled static tests on a tripod
A lens that heavy would be tricky to use handheld
Both of my sigma macros 105 and 150 are excellent so would be surprised if the new sigma is not good
According to the author, it's not a typo! (I asked him about it)
The test shot was taken at MFD (1:1), so the equivalent aperture will be f/3.8.
I'd love to have the Sigma, but currently an used 180/3.5L is just about 1k compared to the very new $1700 Sigma 180 macro. Someone told me that Sigma may lose 30% of its value at 1st year, and probably 50% after 3 years. It may be a better idea to have the 180/3.5L first, then switch to Sigma in few years.
