TORN....Which Macro Lens to get!

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma 180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8 Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for any advice from folks out there who have been here with this decision before and found the answer.

Lee,

I have the Canon 100 2.8 and it's a superb lens (as I'm sure you've read). Any lens shot wide open will have very little depth of field -- that's the nature of lens physics. Why you couldn't stop down beyond f16 I don't understand (I'm almost positive the lens goes to f32).

Would it help if I or someone else here shot a ring or two with our lenses to give you an idea? I'd be glad to post something on my web site (a full sized RAW image so you could really tell) that would really tell the tale -- and I'll stop down all the way. Otherwise I'm not sure how we can help you.

Lee I cannot compare the DOF between the two but I do have the 100/2.8 and would say it is an outstanding lens. I am curious why you would need to get so far back from the jewerly to take the shots. If these still objects are your main target, would there be a standard studio light set up or would the shots be taken in different settings? The reason I ask is that you could consider getting the canon 100 and the ringlite. I think the ringlite (MR-14EX) is perfect for this application. Exposures seem to be on target. HOwever, I do not think it is an outstanding way to do creative lighting effects (e.g. outdoor shots of flowers where back lighting and other activities give creative effects). Perhaps I have not explored all the options with this light.

Anyway, this is my limited experience. I do not have experience with the sigma lens although I know others like the sigma 105. mark

Lee Rothman said:

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is
leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even
save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma
180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8
Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the
price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be
small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog
for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results
possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the
depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond
F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to
get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would
have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from
the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have
a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I
get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if
so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the
performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for
any advice from folks out there who have been here with this
decision before and found the answer.

Click to expand...

Lee,

My Sigma 180 macro should be waiting for me when I get home today. I'm going to take some shots of some of my WWII medal collection and post them on my D30 site tonight.

I'll post a follow-up to this thread when I'm finished.

James Kallstrom

Lee Rothman said:

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is
leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even
save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma
180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8
Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the
price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be
small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog
for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results
possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the
depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond
F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to
get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would
have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from
the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have
a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I
get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if
so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the
performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for
any advice from folks out there who have been here with this
decision before and found the answer.

Click to expand...

Lee,

I had an email conversation with Don Cohen at http://www.dlcphotography.net about a month and a half ago about this issue. He recommended getting both the 100 and 180 (he uses the 100 extensively as can be seen on his site but did not have the 180). Having both would cover all your requirements although the cost going in is quite high. If your company foots the bill, then this would be a feasible approach. If not, then you might go the Sigma route.

Lee Rothman said:

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is
leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even
save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma
180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8
Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the
price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be
small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog
for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results
possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the
depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond
F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to
get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would
have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from
the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have
a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I
get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if
so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the
performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for
any advice from folks out there who have been here with this
decision before and found the answer.

Click to expand...

Lee,

If jewels (or medals) are your quarry, the only advantage I can think of (with the 180) is the greater distance/more room for lighting set-ups, reflectors,etc.

If by "outside of this" you mean outside of the house, and your quarry might include butterflies, bees, dragonflies, chameleons, etc., who often don't appreciate large (potential predators) hovering right-on-top-of-them, ...you will have many more successful "stalks"with the 180.

if "compactness" is not a super concern, i suggest the longer lens. It is the one I will be getting.

Re. the Canon vs "aftermarket" issue:

I think the consensus is the Canon's are "better". But better in the diminishing-return sense. You have to pay a lot for the last little bit of better.

Whether it's worth it to any individual is a subjective call. let your lust-for-quality and your budget be your guides ;-)

Larry

Lee Rothman said:

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is
leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even
save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma
180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8
Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the
price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be
small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog
for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results
possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the
depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond
F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to
get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would
have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from
the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have
a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I
get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if
so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the
performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for
any advice from folks out there who have been here with this
decision before and found the answer.

Click to expand...

I love the Canon 100MM macro....remember there are two versions of this lense....the newer version is absolutely terrific..it costs around $560.00 and worth every penny. I also own some Sigmas and they have been terrific also....your call. Perhaps you can borrow a friends and give them a try.

Jimmy Drew

I got my Sigma 180 yesterday but unfortunately I will not be able to use it this weekend due to the meteor shower. But If you are going to be shooting jewelry, I believe that the 100 or 105 macro should be fine. Now, it is my opinion, which I have expressed before, that for this kind of situations, the 90 Tilt & Shift would be the perfect lens. At high magnification, even at f32, the DOF is very limited and tilt and shift would come very handy and can even achieve better DOF even at greater aperture. If the magnification is not great enough, a short extension tube can help or maybe a 1.4x converter.

Chunin Martinez

Hi Lee,

Depth of field is determined by image magnification and aperture. So if you are achieving a certain level of magnification (say 1:1), and are using the same aperture, any lens/focal length will give you the identical depth of field. So the 180 and 100 do not differ in the depth of field, given the same magnification and aperture. They will differ somewhat in 'perspective' but this is different from depth of field.

The 180 will enable you to increase your working distance, which might make lighting a little simpler. In nature work, that longer working distance is very helpful if you're photographing bugs, butterflies, etc., where you can't get too close without spooking your subject. In your case, it's just a matter of convenience and lighting.

At high magnification, depth of field is limited, requiring small apertures. This is true regardless of which lens you use to achieve that magnification. I've used my 100 macro down to f/22 or even f/32 to get the depth of field I want. I'm not sure what that friend meant by it being "useless" beyond f/16. Theoretically, you might run into some sharpness problems due to "diffraction" at very small apertures, but this is probably not all that significant under normal circumstances.

With small apertures like f/16, f/22, f/32, lighting does become an issue, since you need a lot of it. Natural light shooting will necessitate long shutter speeds and tripod mounting. Tripod use would still be pretty much mandatory even if you're using flash or studio lights.

As for Canon vs Sigma, that's the perennial question. Personally, I prefer to spend the extra $$ and go for the Canon. Better resale value down the road could come in handy should that need arise. But that said, there are many people quite pleased with their Sigma's performance, and the extra $$ in their pockets.

Here's some macro shots taken with the 100 (and some extension):

http://www.dlcphotography.net/Macro/MacroFrameSet.htm

Good luck!

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net

Lee Rothman said:

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is
leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even
save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma
180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8
Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the
price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be
small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog
for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results
possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the
depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond
F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to
get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would
have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from
the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have
a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I
get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if
so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the
performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for
any advice from folks out there who have been here with this
decision before and found the answer.

Click to expand...

Hello Lee,

Dan is right about the depth of field being the same, and the working distance changing for a given magnification.

As I see it, the real significance of that is that with the 180, you had better have a heavy tripod because camera movement becomes the problem.

Of course, you may just decide that you like that large distance between the lens and the subject. It sure would make lighting changes and adjustments easier…

Personally, I would go for the 100 (160mm film equivalent) as in the past, I found a 200mm macro on a 35mm camera starting to get awkward for high magnification work.

I don't think the 50mm sigma (80mm equivalent) would interest you, as the close working distance makes creative lighting difficult (and you have the Canon 50 1.4 for other work), but I recently posted some test images of the Sigma at 1:1. Take a look (It's damn sharp and the price sure is right).

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=1763100

All the best,

Dave Werner

I thank you all for your timely responses. After discussing this subject with several photographers and stores today, I have pretty much settled upon the Canon 180mm 3.5 L Macro lens. Indeed it is a real "Mercedes" in construction and incorporates those things (construction and UD lenses) that have made the "L" what it is. I am buying for the "Long Term" and do not wish to compromise in ANY way. While indeed I will use it for the jewelry, I want it also for many more uses (such as outdoors) and to me it's compatibility with the 1.4XII extender makes it kind of a "no brainer" for me. I am in the process of putting together a fairly complete "L" lens collection and this will fit in nicely. That is part of my January allocation. December is the 100-400L and I can hardly wait. I am hoping to get it by the 22nd of December from Delta International. After all of the great things I have seen and heard about this lens, it is hard to go wrong.. Thanks again.

Lee, before you plop down the money for another lens, get youself
a 24mm extension tube to use with your sigma 24-70. You should
get excellent results.

Matt

Lee Rothman said:

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is
leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even
save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma
180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8
Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the
price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be
small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog
for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results
possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the
depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond
F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to
get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would
have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from
the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have
a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I
get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if
so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the
performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for
any advice from folks out there who have been here with this
decision before and found the answer.

Click to expand...

well buddy Iam quit satisfied with my Sigma 105mm .... my pic with Sigma 105mm ( http://www.pbase.com/image/561071 )

Rahul

Lee Rothman said:

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is
leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even
save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma
180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8
Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the
price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be
small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog
for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results
possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the
depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond
F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to
get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would
have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from
the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have
a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I
get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if
so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the
performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for
any advice from folks out there who have been here with this
decision before and found the answer.

Click to expand...

Guess I'm a real rebel, but I'd suggest the 50mm 1.4 from Canon. Seems odd at first, but
Two reasons:

It's as sharp as any lens out there; at the effective focal length on the D30 (80mm), it'll give you enough distance between your subject and lens; pile on the extension tubes for real closeups...no loss of quality.
Also, it'll serve as a dynamite portrait lens when not macro'ing it.

I used my favorite, Nikon macro 105mm 2.8 for 20 years, before jumping ship and wished it wouldn't have been so long.

Consider it.
Tony

Chunin Martinez said:

I got my Sigma 180 yesterday but unfortunately I will not be able
to use it this weekend due to the meteor shower. But If you are
going to be shooting jewelry, I believe that the 100 or 105 macro
should be fine. Now, it is my opinion, which I have expressed
before, that for this kind of situations, the 90 Tilt & Shift would
be the perfect lens. At high magnification, even at f32, the DOF
is very limited and tilt and shift would come very handy and can
even achieve better DOF even at greater aperture. If the
magnification is not great enough, a short extension tube can help
or maybe a 1.4x converter.

Chunin Martinez

Click to expand...

--Tony S.

... Lee already has the 50mm f/1.4. Like me, he just want to build up his lens arsenal. It's only money afterall and this stuff can be addictive... )))

Tony Silvestro said:

I used my favorite, Nikon macro 105mm 2.8 for 20 years, before
jumping ship and wished it wouldn't have been so long.

Consider it.
Tony

Chunin Martinez said:

I got my Sigma 180 yesterday but unfortunately I will not be able
to use it this weekend due to the meteor shower. But If you are
going to be shooting jewelry, I believe that the 100 or 105 macro
should be fine. Now, it is my opinion, which I have expressed
before, that for this kind of situations, the 90 Tilt & Shift would
be the perfect lens. At high magnification, even at f32, the DOF
is very limited and tilt and shift would come very handy and can
even achieve better DOF even at greater aperture. If the
magnification is not great enough, a short extension tube can help
or maybe a 1.4x converter.

Chunin Martinez

Click to expand...

--
Tony S.

Click to expand...

Lee Rothman said:

but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance.

Click to expand...

If that's true then the decision is easy. The other lenses you mentioned are very good, but the Canon 180/3.5L Macro is easily the best of the bunch. Few people are able to justify the cost, however.

Lee Rothman said:

I thank you all for your timely responses. After discussing this
subject with several photographers and stores today, I have pretty
much settled upon the Canon 180mm 3.5 L Macro lens. Indeed it is a
real "Mercedes" in construction and incorporates those things
(construction and UD lenses) that have made the "L" what it is. I
am buying for the "Long Term" and do not wish to compromise in ANY
way. While indeed I will use it for the jewelry, I want it also for
many more uses (such as outdoors) and to me it's compatibility with
the 1.4XII extender makes it kind of a "no brainer" for me. I am in
the process of putting together a fairly complete "L" lens
collection and this will fit in nicely. That is part of my January
allocation. December is the 100-400L and I can hardly wait. I am
hoping to get it by the 22nd of December from Delta International.
After all of the great things I have seen and heard about this
lens, it is hard to go wrong.. Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Yer doin' the right thing...if you can afford it...go for the best then you won't be kicking yourself later on. Happy shooting.
The Nitwit

Lee Rothman said:

I thank you all for your timely responses. After discussing this
subject with several photographers and stores today, I have pretty
much settled upon the Canon 180mm 3.5 L Macro lens. Indeed it is a
real "Mercedes" in construction and incorporates those things
(construction and UD lenses) that have made the "L" what it is. I
am buying for the "Long Term" and do not wish to compromise in ANY
way. While indeed I will use it for the jewelry, I want it also for
many more uses (such as outdoors) and to me it's compatibility with
the 1.4XII extender makes it kind of a "no brainer" for me. I am in
the process of putting together a fairly complete "L" lens
collection and this will fit in nicely. That is part of my January
allocation. December is the 100-400L and I can hardly wait. I am
hoping to get it by the 22nd of December from Delta International.
After all of the great things I have seen and heard about this
lens, it is hard to go wrong.. Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Lee,

I keep seeing examples of Macro...you ain't seen nuthin' till you see this site. Enjoy and try to keep your sockd from ggittin' knocked off.
Nitwit
http://www.kleptography.com/index.htm

Hi Lee

I own both the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM and the 180 f3.5 USM macros. Both are wonderfull lenses. For the use you describe I would defenitely chose the 100 mm, as the 180 mm would require are very large working distance in some situations. And for the choice betwen the Canon and the Sigma, you will soon regret not getting the USM function, if you go for the Sigma.

And for any one who has not yet seen the updated MTF curves for the Canon 100 mm lens at the Japanese site
http://www.canon-sales.co.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/index-j.html
http://www.canon-sales.co.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef100_f28.html

(not updated at the US site yet), I must say that at least the curves look just as impressive as the 180 mm. And in practical work, I also think that the 100 mm is as sharp as the 180 mm.

Kjeld Olesen
http://www.geocities.com/acapixus--Kjeld Olesen http://www.geocities.com/acapixus

Lee,

I have an alternate suggestion. Since you are getting the 100-400L, why not try the Kenko Pro extension tube set and the Canon 500D with the 100-400L. You will want this combo anyway for the 100-400 and you should be able to get the shots you want with much more versatility than the 180. If this does the job then you will save yourself a big wad of $$ that could be used elsewhere. If it doesn't, then you aren't out anything (the extension tubes and 500D are great, relatively inexpensive add ons for the 100-400).

Lee Rothman said:

I am really in a quandry about which lens to get. My desire is
leaning toward either the Canon 180mm 3.5L Macro lens or maybe even
save some $$$ if the performance is identical and go with the Sigma
180mm Macro 3.5EX HSM. My second thought is to go for the 100mm 2.8
Canon or the 105mm 2.8 Sigma. As usual the Sigma's are 1/2 the
price of the Canon's , but I really am not so much concerned about
the money as the performance. My application is going to mainly be
small jewelry (rings and pendants (not chains). I shoot the catalog
for CDROM for the company I work for, and I want the best results
possible. Someone that owns the 100mm 2.8 Canon told me that the
depth of field is VERY limited indeed and that stopping down beyond
F16 is USELESS. I rather like having a bit more depth of field to
get the entire ring or pendant structure IN FOCUS. I also would
have thought that a 180mm would allow me to get further back from
the item as that would be an advantage for me. I would like to have
a lens that I could use outside of this purpose as well. So would I
get better depth of field control with the 180mm or the 100, and if
so should I just save my $$$ and get the Sigma or is the
performance of the Canon actually superior? Thanks in advance for
any advice from folks out there who have been here with this
decision before and found the answer.

Click to expand...