Sigma 150 or 180mm macro

[s._prior]

<p>I have a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens and want another macro lens with more working distance and am considering both the Sigmas, 150mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/3.5 both non-os versions, for a 5D II camera. Anyone used both who can offer their opinions on which is the better lens regarding image quality. I do use a tripod most of the time but sometimes use a monopod too.<br>

A used 150mm lens is about $150 more expensive than a 180mm lens of equal condition. Is the 150mm that much better or is it because it is a f/2.8 lens?</p>

[ruben leal]

While I don't have any of those, and these reviews were done using an APS-C format camera, you may be interested in reading what

photozone says about these lenses:

 

Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/303-sigma-af-150mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-hsm-macro-test-report--review

 

Sigma AF 180mm f/3.5 http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/305-sigma-af-180mm-f35-ex-hsm-apo-macro-test-report--review

[ed_avis2]

<p>I think the 150mm is newer. 180mm is the 'classic' long macro lens and Sigma, Canon and Tamron all have or had a 180mm f/3.5 macro lens. They are all good, judging by reviews, with possibly the Tamron being a tiny bit superior to the other two, and the Canon being quite a bit more expensive. I have the Sigma 180mm and I can't fault it, but then I have not subjected it to a thorough test, and have used it more for middle-distance photography than for macro.</p>

[lester_wareham]

I use the Canon 100 and 180, both are very good, the 180 is much harder to handhold due to the longer focal length and

weight, I expect this applies to the sigmas too.

 

The 150 is newer and seems to be a compromise length between they standard ~100mm length and the longer 180mm.

If you are hanging on to you 90mm rather than replacing I would suggest the 180 is the way to go to see the maximum

difference, if replacing then perhaps not.

 

I think all the true macro lenses are so good in terms of quality I would only worry about operational issues.

[ed_avis2]

<p>The Sigma 180mm macro does not accept the Canon 1.4x teleconverter (and I expect it doesn't accept the 2x either). The 150mm lens does.</p>

[biomed]

<p>As a side question, are the newer Sigma lenses with OS optically superior to the older versions? I know that the OS is good to have but if one always uses a tripod would it still be worth getting the newer Sigma macro lenses over the older ones?</p>

[de_isaacs]

<p>I have the Tamron 90mm and 180mm Macro Lenses for my 5DMkII, as well as a 60mm EF-S Lens that I use only on my 7D, both Tamron lenses are very good, though I agree with other posters that the 180mm is much harder to handhold due to the longer focal length and weight – which has resulted in my acquiring several mounting aids (Pistol Ball Grip and Hanging Bracket) that I use on my Monopods and Tripods.<br>

If you already have a 90mm rather than replacing I would suggest the 180 is the way to go to see the maximum difference, if replacing then perhaps not.<br>

I agree also that the Tamron lenses are a tiny bit superior to the Sigma and Canon, and Canon being the most expensive.<br>

Your Mileage May Vary – and good luck!<br>

Derek E. Isaacs</p>

[tony_buckwell1]

<p>I have the 150mm Sigma, having previously owned the 90mm Tamron. The 90mm AF Tamron (at least my copy), although good, never quite came up to the standard of my much older "brass 'n glass" Tamron 90mm SP manual focus lens somehow, neither in terms of build nor image "quality". I'm very much happier with the Sigma which, certainly in my hands, is superior in both respects. I would have absolutely no hesitation in recommending it. <br>

Tony Buckwell</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I've got the Sigma 150 (non OS) and it works fine with the Sigma 1.4x tc. </p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>Don't forget the new Sigma 180 f/2.8 APO macro. It's big, heavy, and expensive but the IQ appears to be excellent.</p>

[s._prior]

<p>Thanks everyone for your suggestions and comments. I plan to keep the 90mm macro lens so I will now look into getting a 180mm macro lens.<br>

Because of the cost I didn't consider the newer Sigma 150mm f/2.8 and 180mm f/2.8 macro lenses. Another poster asked how much better the OS lenses were over the older non-OS lenses and since no one responded I'm assuming no one has used both. Even if the newer lenses were better I'm afraid at just over $1,000 for the 150mm and $1,500 for the 180mm it's out of my price range at the moment.<br>

In considering the 180mm macro lens it look like I should also look into the Tamron 180mm lens as it seems to be slightly better than the Sigma. The cost of these used lenses appears to bear that out since the Sigma is around $450 and the Tamron about $550 in the same condition. I'll have to decide on one of these. Thanks again for all your comments.</p>