EF 100/2.8 L IS vs. Sigma 70/2.8 macro

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I think I know the answer to my question, but I'll ask it anyway in hope that someone will uncover an aspect that I haven't thought of.</p>

<p>I have a Sigma 70/2.8 macro (which is, incidentally, my only Sigma lens), which I bought used on the basis of good reviews. And I must say that my somewhat limited experience with the lens so far has accorded with the reviews.</p>

<p>Now I have an opportunity to purchase a like new used copy of the EF 100/2.8 L IS for a very good price, and am wondering what it might offer me over the Sigma macro. Admittedly, with two young children to keep me photographically occupied, I don't do a lot of macro work at present. But this will likely change over the next few years.</p>

<p>I should add that I shoot with a 1V and 5DII, and don't intend on shooting fast moving macro subjects such as insects.</p>

<p>As always, any advice from this esteemed community would be much appreciated.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I am sure you have read these reviews:</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d<br /><br />http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/559-sigma70ff28eosff</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Yes, I certainly have. The Sigma comes out surprisingly better with respect to resolution.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>That is a theoretical resolution measurement that well exceeds any sensors abilities, by several orders of magnitude, so is rather academic. The Canon lens does not lack resolving abilities even on 21mp sensors or the finest 35mm films.</p>

<p>I have never seen the Sigma but do own the Canon, knowing a little of your lens history I'd say get it, if you don't like it then just sell it, but I would put money on it being the Sigma that leaves your home.</p>

<p>Why? Well the Canon has internal focusing so it stays the same length, this is very useful for macro work. The hood on the Canon is subsequently much more effective, a small thing but true none the less. The background blur is considerably more obvious on the Canon, this could be a negative or positive but generally is considered a good thing, just look at the blur of the jack in the test images. The 100mm focal length will give you a fair bit longer working distance, irrelevant for still life but try getting close to bugs and stuff, again the Canon is a winner. The IS on the Canon is one of the most advanced stabalising systems on any camera lens readily available at the moment. The Canon lens is weather-sealed as is your 1V.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>Admittedly, with two young children to keep me photographically occupied, I don't do a lot of macro work at present</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 100 f2.8 is also very highly rated as a portrait lens so you have a double reason :)</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Personally, I find that the internal-focusing design of the Canon macro is a bit.. overrated.</p>

<p>While it's cool that the lens doesn't extend when focusing close, it is physically large (I don't have the L macro, but the 100/2.8 Macro). I used to use the Pentax system and the 100mm Pentax macro is quite a bit smaller and lighter.. but it does extend.</p>

<p>Have not tried the Sigma, but the big thing about the Canon is the USM ring drive. IS is not too useful (at least for me) at macro distances, because you'll be stopped down and using flash.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Three notes.</p>

<p>1. If you get it at a good price you'll be able to sell it for that price. So it's like a "free rental". (Unless the price isn't that good or you break it. There's always a risk.)</p>

<p>2. If you only use it on a rail and light with strobes you won't need fast AF. However I've shot it using AI Servo at macro distances with pretty good results so if there's a chance of you handholding it that's a consideration.</p>

<p>3. I absolutely love mine as a short tele and portrait lens.</p>

<p>In short, it seems like a low risk high gain bet to me.</p>

<p>But I'm biased because I do have the 100L and have never used the Sigma 70.</p>

<p>Have fun,</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

 

[orly_andico]

<p>what Matthijs said. I have never had the Sigma 70 but I imagine it gets (much) longer as it focuses close, just like my old Pentax.</p>

<p>Which means the AF speed is just so-so, making it not really good for grab portraits.</p>

<p>the Canon 100 Macro and L Macro both have ring USM so I assume the AF speed is similar (good, but not that good due to the long focus throw). Agreed on the depreciation.. as long as you're the <strong>second</strong> buyer (or later) there's pretty much zero depreciation on L lenses.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Mark,<br>

I'm also onboard with Matthijs's comments.</p>

<p>I've had my Canon 100 L Macro now for just over a year. I'm not familiar with the Sigma enough to even know if it has IS, but can attest that the newer generation IS on the 100 L is a winner.<br>

It's one of three IS lenses that I own, so I do have some experience to make a comparison.</p>

<p>The IS alone would make the deal for me, and as about everyone has indicated, . . . appears that there is very little depreciation if you find you don't like the 100 L Macro.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>It's unanimous: I should get the 100/2.8 L IS!</p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice, guys. This is one of the many reasons I love this place.</p>

<p>Scott, while the Sigma does extend while focusing, its hood attaches to the part of the barrel that extends, which does make it effective. It is a bit awkward to use, however, since it screws on, and lens cap must be removed.</p>

<p>I do agree with everyone who says that the Sigma has clunky AF. While I'd typically be manually focusing during macro work, I have heard that in windy conditions, the EF macro autofocuses very well in AI Servo mode. And of course the Sigma has no IS system of any kind.</p>

<p>As for the 100/2.8 L IS doubling as a portrait prime, I already have that application well covered with my 85/1.2 L II, 100/2, and 135/2. (Admittedly, though, IS would be nice in a portrait prime.)</p>

<p>So despite my reservations, I might just pick up that copy of the Canon (if it's still available after all my dilly-dallying), and try it out. After all, as some of you have pointed out, I could always turn around and sell it for the same price (or more!) if perchance I don't like it.</p>

[pete_ferling]

<p>That lens is sharp from edge to edge, and I have some 36" prints from a 7D to prove it's worth. You won't be disappointed.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Mark,<br>

I think it is important to identify what exactly your requirements are, besides not shooting bugs. Without knowing that information, it is hard to determine whether a 100mm or 70mm lens of any brand would be better for you.</p>

<p>I use the Sigma 70mm for closeup work (mostly flowers) with the 7D and think very highly of it. The AF is relatively slow, but I manually focus using Liveview anyway, so AF speed is not that important to me. Since I use a tripod 95% of the time for closeups, the lack of IS in the lens is mostly irrelevant as well.</p>

<p>While I have no experience with the specific Canon lens you are inquiring about, I have plenty of experience with macro lenses of similar focal lengths when shooting with both Pentax and Canon cameras. I think the optical engineers figured out macro capabilities quite a while ago; most anything over $350 seems quite excellent to me. The real decision involves matching specific focal lengths with your requirements.</p>

<p>Thus my initial sentence.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thank you for your insight, Michael.</p>

<p>So far in my "macro work" I've shot flowers and small fruit and vegetables (still attached and growing), such as cherry tomatoes and small peppers. And the Sigma 70/2.8 has served me very well in this regard. It has also worked well for backyard shots of my children. It seems to be very sharp across the frame at all apertures, and it's slow AF doesn't really bother me, since I'm used to manually focusing with my FD gear.</p>

<p>So despite my earlier enthusiam for the EF 100/2.8 L IS, which I'm sure is a stellar lens optically and has a very sophisticated AF and IS systems, I'm thinking now that the Sigma is more than sufficient for my needs, and perhaps that my ten bordens (the Canadian equivalent to ten benjamins) would be better left in the bank.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Mark, I was wondering how that Sigma survived in your stable of L glass!</p>

<p>Michael is right, all macro lenses are very good (even the $100 Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 that I used to own). So your choice boils down to ergonomics. Maybe sell off the Sigma and your 100mm f/2 and replace with the Canon L macro. Your net cash out wouldn't be that much. I'm thinking of selling off my Canon (non-L) macro and getting the L.. but my reason for doing so is the weather-sealing.. my wife likes to chase bugs in the rain and wet grass.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for the additional advice, Orlando.</p>

<p>I'm mainly a "fair weather" photographer, so weather sealing isn't really an issue for me. If I were to get the Canon macro, it would be for its AF and IS systems, and greater reach.</p>

<p>It does make sense, however, to replace my Sigma 70/2.8 and EF 100/2 with an EF 100/2.8 L IS. I must admit that I haven't used the 100/2 <em>even once </em>since acquiring the 85/1.2 L II. Perhaps I'll see how the Sigma fares this spring and summer, and then make a decision.</p>