MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: tab62 on May 24, 2012, 15:14
-
Hi MSG Folks,
I am comparing these two lenses and wanted to get your feedback/thoughts - the sigma is about $300 lower than the Canon thus is the Canon worth the extra $$$?
Here are the lenses in question:
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Thanks
Tom
-
Have used the Canon lens for a few months now and find the image quality excellent very sharp throughout the range, so would recommend it. Haven't used the Sigma so can't say.
Druid
-
Canon! 100%, dont even think of the Sigma, if you go for a third party macro, then go for the 90 mil Tamron, thats a classic.
-
Canon it is! Plus if I upgrade my canon to a full frame I want to ensure all my lenses transfer. Thanks
-
Have used the Canon lens for a few months now and find the image quality excellent very sharp throughout the range, so would recommend it. Haven't used the Sigma so can't say.
Druid
I have the Canon 100mm and love it. As stated above, very sharp. I can't compare directly to a Sigma 105mm, but I do have a Sigma wide angle and I don't think the quality of the images are as good as from my Canon lenses. If I had to do over, I would buy Canon. It sometimes doesn't pay to be cheap.
-
For macro work only, Tamron 90 2.8 or Sigma 105 would do the job as the Canon 100 2.8 ( L or not )
If You plan do something more, Canon for sure.
-
A third thread. The Sigma 105mm is a fine lens. Since you don't seem to know what you want, you might be best going for the cheaper. Even then, 750 bucks for the Sigma is a lot of cash to shoot dates on coins. Do you have any experience here at all? Because the questions are basically repetitive. Your cheapest way out to test the waters would be with a reversing ring and the 50mm or tubes. Don't expect miracles as it takes a bit of work.
-
I will probably borrow a lens and see if I like the Macro lens...
-
I will probably borrow a lens and see if I like the Macro lens...
It's a good idea. Almost lens on my set were tested before I buy them ( large group of friends with canon )
All 1:1 lens are an prime lens, with a good max aperture. The sweet spot of a dedicated macro lens is on closer shoots, but they have a good performance in all kind of subjects.
I have non L version of canon 100 2.8 Macro, and it's sharper enough , even shooting @ f/2.8.
-
I use the older 100mm non-USM non-L version almost every day - and the quality is excellent (35mm, digital). As far as I know this the sharpest lens in Canon's EF line. In $ that was about $380 (or £250) 3 months ago.
-
I have a pretty decent selection of L series glass and I can say that the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is my favorite lens and produces the best quality images of any lens I've got. I can't say enough great things about it. So worth the money!
-
I don't use the Canon Lens but do use a 2.8, 100mm Macro Lens. It comes in quite handy as a light-weight alternative for action sports.
Not important to many but if you are looking for "cost justification" you might consider other uses.