I'm thinking about buying this lens or the Canon 100 f/2.8 macro USM.
I'm also going to use it for short tele and portraits, so fast AF is always nice to have.
The advantages of the Sigma:
+ 150mm -> bigger work area
+ f/2.8 at 150mm -> nice fast 240mm tele (on 20D)
+ tripod socket, lens hood
The advantages of the Canon:
+ USM (faster than HSM..?)
+ Proven quality
+ Bit smaller and lighter
Please share your experiences with the new Sigma. Thanks!
That seems interesting. I shot lots of macros with 100 canon. It is also my portrait lens.
What would be the price for this sigma? Is there any review already? In case that haven't tried it yet... take your 70-200, zoom in to 150mm and try shooting portraits. I believe that on 20d 150mm is veeery long for indoor portraits, probably to long.
I have 12-24 and 100-300 f4 from sigma and I must say that they are build very well. They feel better in my hands than canon 100 macro.
Thanks for the info.
Maybe 150mm is too far for portraits, but very nice for 'short tele' work.
On the other hand...I already got a 50 f/1.4 lens, so a 150mm lens would be a greater addition than a 100mm lens.
The Canon costs 539 euros in Holland, the Sigma 569 euros....
If you like to have fast AF the macro lenses are not so good. Every macro lens has pretty slow AF. If you have the distance close to where you are focusing it will be fast and good but if the AF has to go all the way it will take long time.........
Moody wrote:
The Canon costs 539 euros in Holland, the Sigma 569 euros....
I'm also interested in the Sigma, but so far I haven't seen a single review. Do you have a link for that 569 euro offer? That price is quite amazing. So far I've only seen two offers (online shops) in Germany, one for 763 euros and one for 997 euros...
I've had my eye out for this one as well. I would much preffer the reach of the 150 over the canon. For indoor portraits on a 1.6 crop camera the 150 would be kind of long (unless you are going for eyeballs or live in a palace) but for outdoor it could be great except for the slow focus they all have. I don't think the 150 is out yet .... I had almost bought the 180 just when the 150 was anounced. I am waiting because I find the lesser weight of the 150 and the smaller size a nice draw. The tripod collar is nice ... very usefull and canons from what I hear is quite expensive. Between these choices I would go for the Sigma over the Canon for sure ... unless the quality is somehow terrible .... it would be more of a question of the 150 vs the 180 and there I would go with the Sigma over the so so Canons 180 performance. Last test I read on the 180's the Tamron came first followed by the sigma and the canon took up the rear. Hard to swallow considering how much canon is charging ..... heck for that much money I can probably buy the sigma 180 and the 150.
One other drawback, if you're planning on doing real 1:1 macro work, is that the minimum aperture on the Sigma is f/22. Both the Canon 100 and Sigma 180 go to f/32. This will probably make a difference as far as depth of field goes for tiny subjects.
AndreasF wrote:
I'm also interested in the Sigma, but so far I haven't seen a single review. Do you have a link for that 569 euro offer? That price is quite amazing. So far I've only seen two offers (online shops) in Germany, one for 763 euros and one for 997 euros...
@Lars: I know their AF systems aren't fast, but I don't going to use it for fast action, so it will be fast enough. I know the Canon has a switch to make its AF faster when you don't use it for macro.
@Pavel: I'm going to use it for outdoor portraits, so its length won't be a problem. I also looked at the Sigma 180, but I think I'll like the 150 more because of its length, weight and max. aperture.
@Spartan: Thanks! I'll have to wait then....
@JCDoss: f/22 would be sufficient for me. At which aperture do you usually make your macros?
Moody wrote:
@JCDoss: f/22 would be sufficient for me. At which aperture do you usually make your macros?
Anything upwards of f/16, depending on the magnification. The closer to 1:1 you go, the more you'll be wanting to close down that aperture. Frankly, though, I haven't dabbled around enough at 1:1 to be able to speak too authoritatively on the subject.
While it's true that smaller apertures create softness through diffraction, it's also true that smaller apertures are necessary for adequate depth of field as magnification increases. Like I said, I don't have enough experience to know the practical difference between f/22 and f/32, but it makes sense to me that one would want the opportunity to use f/32 if 1:1 magnification was desired. Hopefully, one of the macroholics will chime in here and clear things up for us.
On my macro shots I usually do not to push them past f/22 on my digitals, even when using a bellows and manual lenses. Past f/22 the dark areas start looking like crap.
JCDoss wrote:
One other drawback, if you're planning on doing real 1:1 macro work, is that the minimum aperture on the Sigma is f/22. Both the Canon 100 and Sigma 180 go to f/32. This will probably make a difference as far as depth of field goes for tiny subjects.
True but for the 10D at least and most likely for the 20D, you begin to get image degradation from sensor diffraction at f/16 or smaller anyway. In fact, this could be worse on the 20D since it has smaller, more densely packed photo sites.
Moody, I own a Sigma 180 f/3.5 EX and the build and image quality are first rate. I'd expect the build quality of the 150 to be comparable and the image quality to be even better. Depending on price, this could be a killer lens.
Also the Macro lens test that was linked to always makes me squirm since I really think they tested a duff Sigma 180. I'd swear my Sigma would produce superior images that would equal the Canon (but admitedly not the Tamron which seems to have the best image quality of all the macros).
