nathan_vance Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Tell me about these two lenses and why I should get the Canon over the Sigma. I've heard the quality of the Sigma is almost to the quality of the Canon 180 Macro. And how many more inches of room am I gonna have at minimum focus with the Sigma. Thank you in advance for your responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwphotog Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Remember, that just as in a longer normal telephoto lens, the depth of field is less, so, too, is it for the macros. I went with the Tamron 90mm macro on my D60 after trying the Sigma for that reason. Now if you need to be farther away from your subject and the depth isn't a concern, then the longer focal length would be better. Ultimately, it depends on your usage. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whayne_padden Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Optically the Sigma is excellent. In fact most macro lenses are very good. The main differences would come down to AF speed. I have the Sigma 105 f/2.8 EX Macro and it works great on my EOS 3. The canon has an advantage in that it does not extend as it magnifies and its USM means it focusses much faster. You may also like to know Tamron has just released a 180 f/3.5 SP, which if it's as good as it's 90 f/2.8 SP will mean it's an awesome lens. As to which lens to get, it depends firstly whether your using a digital camera with a 1.6x crop. A 180 on an EOS 10D becomes effectivley a 288, very long. So for a 10D I would get a 100 mm macro which becomes a 160. For a film or full frame digital the 180mm will give you more working distance between subject and lens (great for wildlife), but it is a lot heavier and expensive than a 100mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morw Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 canon 100/2.8 macro is also a good all around lens, pin sharp at all distances. sigma 180/3.5 macro is a good macro lens but quite a soft to use as a telephoto for longer distances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 If we assume that AF speed and build and optical quality are the same, then the Canon pros are : 400g Lighter 260$ cheaper Cheaper 58mm filters (vs. 72mm) Never have to worry about compatibility problems. And the Sigma Pro is : 15cm more working distance (from film plane). Your call. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vsevolod_krishchenko Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 <I>Remember, that just as in a longer normal telephoto lens, the depth of field is less, so, too, is it for the macros.</I> Sorry, but this is just not right. DoF will be the same for the same object size in the frame, no matter you use 20mm or 200mm.<p> You will have about 25cm from front lens to object with Sigma, it is mostly usefull for insects and even small animals like frogs but sometimes harmful when shooting wild flowers from the ground. As far As i hear, Sigma is quite soft on long distance... Still no bother to check it myself :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_vance Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 I would buy the Sigma used so it would be just a little under 500 bucks. So the pricing isn't that much different. The Sigma being a little soft on distance subjects kinda bother me though. I'm still no sure. I'm think about the Canon though. Feel free to add more comment. I would love to hear what everyone has to say about these two lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now