EF 180/3.5L USM Macro or Sigma 180/3.5 APO Macro?

[eric_.]

Hello all,<br><br>

I am considering two long focal length macro lenses: the Canon EF

180/3.5 and the Sigma 180/3.5. Does anyone know of an on line test

of both lenses, or even better do you have first hand experience

with both?<br>

How versatile are both lenses? Can they also be used as a normal

prime lens?<br>

Is the Canon worth three times the price of the Sigma lens?<br><br>

Thanks.

[yakim_peled1]

>> "Is the Canon worth three times the price of the Sigma lens?"

 

Tough question and the answers will surely be subjective. From what I read the Sigma is very good in terms of optical and build quality (not matching the Canon but still very good). However, as I see it, the problem lies elsewhere. Sigma has an awful reputation concerning compatibility problems with EOS bodies. For this reason alone I believe that their lenses are far from being a good purchase. Can't afford the Canon and must have a third party lens ? Try the equivalent Tamron. Tamron have so few compatibility problems that there is a rumor that they bought the EOS mount license from Canon.

 

>> "Can they also be used as a normal prime lens?"

 

Of course they can but the 200/2.8 L will be much better in this regard as it is lighter, smaller and cheaper.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[Former P.N Member]

I own the Sigma 180mm and can say from first hand experience, rather than <i>"from what I've heard"</i>, that the build quality and optics are excellent.

<p>

I would disagree with the statement regarding future compatbility. According to the Sigma USA web site the compatability is not an issue with their HSM series of lenses. The following is quoted from their site:

<p>

<b><i>

Some Sigma lenses made before December 2000 will require upgrading in

order to function properly with the Elan 7 and EOS 10D camera. This

modification is not necessary for Sigma HSM type lenses.

</i></b>

<p>

The Sigma 180mm Macro is both an 'EX' series and 'HSM'.

<p>

Even if there is a future compatability problem Sigma has an excellent track record of 'rechipping' if necessary. I sent a 170-500 in for this service and had it back in 1 week. It was no longer under warranty but there was no cost to me (other than shipping to Sigma).

<p>

<i>Can't afford the Canon and must have a third party lens ? Try the equivalent Tamron.</i>

<p>

To the best of my knowledge only Canon and Sigma make a 180mm macro. Do you know otherwise?

[eric_.]

<i>To the best of my knowledge only Canon and Sigma make a 180mm macro. Do you know otherwise?

</i><br><br>

Tamron also produces a <a href="http://www.tamron.com/35mm/di.htm">180mm macro lens</a>. This lens is brand new, release date is June 2003. Obviously it is very hard to have any review of its quality.

[Former P.N Member]

<a href ="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh4/controller/home;jsessionid=1UjzJamCM7!942469837?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=284404&is=REG&si=feat#goto_itemInfo"> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh4/controller/home;jsessionid=1UjzJamCM7!942469837?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=284404&is=REG&si=feat#goto_itemInfo </a>

<p>

Interesting, I learn something new every day. I wonder if the "Digital Intergration" is anything more than marketing hype?

<p>

The Filter Effect Control looks like it could be a feature with some value.

[robin_sibson1]

You don't say what you are going to use this lens for, nor whether you are using it on a film body or a digital body. It may offer exactly the specification you want, of course, but there are several alternatives which are better for general-purpose use and might be worth thinking about. One is the 100/2.8 USM, whose merits are too well-known to need repeating. If that does not give enough working distance, what about the 135/2 on the EF25 tube? Isaac and I have been using this combination for photographing butterflies, he on a D30 and I on a 1v. It works very well, both optically and in terms of handling, and of course the 135/2 is a superb lens for general use. 135-on-a-tube is still 135, of course, and probably does not shorten its working focal length much during internal focusing, whereas the 180/3.5 will have a working focal length of a lot less than 180 in close-up, so as between the two there will probably not be a lot of difference in working distance. The Macrolite Adaptor 72C, designed to allow the MR-14EX and MT-24EX to fit the 180/3.5, also fits the 135/2. It looks as if it will cause vignetting, but does not appear to do so.

[isaac sibson]

I disagree with Dick on the compatibility issue. Although present lenses need no upgrades to work with present cameras, what's to say that canon won't play about with it again, and the sigmas will be incompatible with future EOS bodies?<p>

 

As my father said above, the 135 F2L + 25mm extension is a very good combo. Here's an example:<p>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1616037&size=lg"><p>

 

That and a couple of others can be found in my D30 folder.

[JosvanEekelen]

I own a Sigma 180 mm Macro and I'm quite happy with it: the built quality and optical quality are quite good. The only downside: the lens hunts quite a lot while focussing, both on an EOS-5 and on an EOS-30. This is probably a consequence of the design, according to www.photographyreview.com this also is the case with the Canon 180 mm macro. Focussing is considerably slower than for instance the Canon 100-400 IS lens or the 85/1.8, but can be improved by using the focus limiter switch on the lens and only using the central focussing sensor of the camera. When I bought the Sigma 180 macro it was considerably cheaper than the Canon 100 mm Macro USM. This, and the larger distance between camera and subject made me choose the Sigma.

 

Just my 2c,

[sid_chandra]

I own the Canon 180 and have to say that it is (in my opinion) far better than the sigma. I personally use mine as a macro and a normal lense, just have to make sure to switch the focus limiter over and even the auto focus is fine. As far as i know the Canon is only double the price and to me it is WELL worth it

 

Thanks.

[Former P.N Member]

Sid,

 

What criteria are you using to determine the Canon is far better than the Sigma? Have you used both on the same body, same subject, etc. and compared results side by side? I'm curious.

 

Eric,

 

If you check the historical postings here you'll find that Isaac disagrees with anyone who advocates using a non-Canon lens for anything under any circumstances.

 

If you want to spent an extra US $520.95 now to buy the Canon in order to save the potential cost of shipping a lens to Sigma in the future IF you buy a new Canon body AND IF the lens is not compatible with the body only you can make that decision.

 

I've compared the results from the Sigma and Canon and there is no significant difference that can detect. The comparison was not done in a controlled environment so any further discussion of this would be moot.

 

Here is a sample taken with the Sigma on a 10D.<div></div>

[Former P.N Member]

...and another sample.<div></div>

[isaac sibson]

<i>If you check the historical postings here you'll find that Isaac disagrees with anyone who advocates using a non-Canon lens for anything under any circumstances. </i><p>

 

Once bitten, Twice shy.

[giovanni_verago]

Hi all,

 

I'm interested in purchase a Sigma 180/3.5 (Eos mount).

Don't have any experience with this lens, but I saw many positive comments/reviews on the net.

I read a review on the optical performance of the HSM version (os and Nikon mount) and I was very impressed (I can send it if someone is interested in).

 

Two photographers tested the lens in the fields with VERY GOOD results. Anyway for many insects (e.g Dragonfly or some butterfly) thy found 28 cm of working distance inadequate.

 

They tested the lens with the two Sigma APO converter mounted at the same time (the 2x attached on the lens and the 1,4 behind it). The photo of a hornet's face shows the ocular spots inside the eye (a detail difficult to see with the naked eye). The sharpness was incredible!!

 

Sid,

I'm sure Canon 180 is a good lens (I haven't saw any reviews on the optical performance with and without the converters though) but it costs a fortune (1800 � = 1800 $ Vs 700 � 700 $ for the Sigma)!!

 

I'm not a pro (not sure if Eric is). So I can't justify such a purchase. I prefer to go for the Sigma and keep 100 � to "rechips" it, if Incompatibility issues will come out in the future (if I'll decide to change my Eos 30).

 

I'm also interested in the user opinions on this forum. Any input will be greatly appreciate.

mmm... interesting debate here.

 

 

Giovanni

[eric_.]

Thanks for all the responses. Very interesting points of view with nice examples. I was impressed by the EF 135/2L + EF 25mm combo. Adding the macro tube makes this a very versatile lens, great for portraits AND great for macro. But also the Sigma 180/3.5 macro seems like a very good choice if the focus is on macro.<br>

I haven't decided yet. Would like to see some Tamron 180/3.5 macro reviews...and prints!

[sid_chandra]

Giovanni, i dont know where your seeing a 180 macro for 1800$ but you are getting ROBBED! BandH has it for about $1250.

I did overlook the use of the lense for Eric, and i am most certainly not a professional but I (not everyone) do not believe in sacrificing quality,risking that it might work with my current body/future bodies,and taking the time to send it to sigma to rechip it. All that to ME seems like too much of a hassle/risk, especially if this is a long term decesion (which i dont know if it is or isnt)

[wildpicture]

Well, the Canon 180/3.5 may be around $1200 in the US. Here in Europe it costs around 1800 euro's, which is close to $2000.

[eric_.]

Isaac,<br>

You gave a very nice example of macro possibilities with the 135/2L + 25mm combo. Do you have any exprience with a 200/2.8L + macro tube instead of the 135/2L?

[isaac sibson]

Eric-

 

I'm afraid not. I've not had much time to play with the extension tube yet. When I do get around to it I will play with it on all of the lenses available to me (either mine or my father's) which it would work well with, including the 70-200 F4L, 300 F4L IS, 100-400 IS. The 135 F2L seemed a fairly natural companion to the extension tube. I may give it a go on the 100 F2.8 macro also, and see what that can achieve...