Battle of the titans: Canon 100 f2.8 macro vs. Sigma 150 f2.8 macro

I've got the Sigma 150mm and often use it with the Sigma 1.4x converter mainly for extra magnification. It is a superb lens. I don't have the Canon 100mm and thought I could do without it. However, I do have to admit that especially for handheld flash macros when I go on my longer walks, the Sigma 150mm starts to get a bit heavy and unwieldy after a bit. I've always used lenses in the 90-105mm range on other (non-Canon) systems I've had and I'm missing not having one for my Canon. So for next summer I will be definitely getting one - probably the Canon.

Overall, I think its horses for courses. The 150mm is probably a better tripod lens because the longer working distance means its easier to position the tripod. Likewise, it will be better at separating things from the background and has lovely bokeh. But I reckon for handholding, especially if you are walking around a lot, then the 100mm is probably the better option. Because I don't own the Canon I haven't been able to test them side by side. From the tests and from photos I have seen I reckon the Sigma might just have the edge in image quality, especially at wide apertures. However, these differences are probably fractional at best and wouldn't make any difference in real world photos.

Whilst it isn't a test of the 100mm against the 150mm - I did an interesting real world comparison shot at 1:1 with the Sigma 150mmm against the legendary Canon MP-E 65mm. It is surprising how well the Sigma compared to the MP-E 65mm, which is probably the Gold Standard for macros. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=28930620

I agree that from a weight perspective the Canon 100mm is easy to handhold but I still find that it's not an ideal scenario because you have to be so accurate with the focusing - depth of field is minimal. I'd ideally not be handholding a macro lens - at times I have because I've really struggled to get the right angle with my tripod, even though it's quite a flexible one in terms of set-up.

My feeling is I'd probably get more out of a longer FL for macro work though I've not been doing a lot of it recently so am biding my time. It is worth remembering that good lenses tend to have good resale value so you can work with something for a while and if it's not what you want, you can usually sell it without much if any loss.
--
Lizzie
----------------------------------
http://www.lizzieshepherd.com

Hi Lizzie

Mainly I handhold for insects and use a tripod for flowers. I find with insects, especially active ones that its difficult to get the right angle on them with a tripod. I mainly shoot with an MP-E 65mm and so my focussing has to be spot on. A lot of the time I use a technique invented by JohnK - his left hand brace technique. With this you hold onto the flower an insect is feeding on with your left and and rest the end of the lens on it. This gives incredible stability and enables you to get the focussing spot on. However, it only really works when you have a short working distance such as with the MP-E 65mm. At other times I use a sort of brace I came up with http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=28730887

Its just a small Velbon monopod with a Manfrotto shoulder brace. I don't often use the monopod on the ground but brace it against my body. Lately I have started putting the end of the monopod into an old lens pouch on a shoulder strap, but around my kneck like a camera strap. This gives much more stability and enables you to get the focussing spot on. Its more versatile than a tripod and you can even use it as a monopod.

Thanks for that info - interesting and something to explore - I do find the lack of angle with tripods can be tricky - I have a Benro tripod that is a cheaper rip-off of the Gitzo Explorer I think it is - basically where you can have the central column at different angles, but in reality it can be hard to get the weighting right and takes a long time to set up. I believe I can keep my hand quite steady in terms of lateral movement for handholding - the difficult thing is keeping the focus point exactly where you want it - I will have to try some of these things and also I think just work harder at not moving!
--
Lizzie
----------------------------------
http://www.lizzieshepherd.com

I see that you can get a Sigma 150 HSM Macro for $559 from Sigma4less. I would like the 180mm Canon, but that is too expensive. I have an incredibly sharp ef 70-200mm IS Canon, (f/4 version), and I'm wondering how the IQ from that would compare to the Sigma when I use my set of Kenko Extension tubes?

Anybody use those and what is the quality you get from them as opposed to a true / proper Macro lense such as the Sig.?
Camera used: Canon 40D
Thanks
--

After trying a friends 150 Sigma I sold my 100 Canon and purchased one.

Working distance was important to me and I liked the extra the 150mm provides. IQ is equal if not a slight step up on the Sigma. I personally thought the Sigma also offered a slight edge over the Canon in overall image quality but this could be just individual preference.

As far as TC's go - Canon's won't work at all so you would have to buy a non-Canon TC if you go with the 100mm Canon and want/need a TC.

The Sigma 1.4 TC AF kinds works with the Sigma 150 but there are severe limitations - there is lots written on this so if AF with a TC is a big concern you might want to do a little research or you just might be disappointed. IMO however I don't use AF much with macro - especially if using the 1.4 TC - So it doesn't matter much to me.

Weight is really the big difference between these lenses besides working distance. The Sigma is built like a tank and has the tripod collar included if needed. I handhold it quite frequently however and don't find the extra weight a huge problem but of coarse YMMV.

I lusted after the Canon 180 but the big price tag always held me back. After getting the Sigma 150 I haven't even given a second thought to the 180 Canon.

I don't have this lens and so I have not tried this. My understanding is that this is an exceptional lens for image quality, but it is not quite so good at its closest focussing.

My experience is that if you use a lot of extension on a none macro lens the image quality takes a big hit because they are not designed to focus this close (they have no correction). I should imagine the image quality will not be anywhere near as good as a true macro because these have special correction in the close focusing range - although it might still be reasonable enough to get a satisfactory photograph.

However, another alternative is to use close-up lenses such as the 500D and 250D. The advantage of these is that the lens can be focussed at infinity but still get very close. You can get some impressive images like this. An advantage is there isn't the same light loss you get with tubes. As long as you keep the zoom at its long end you can often use a much smaller close-up lens than the filter thread fitting (with the appropriate stepping ring) and you don't tend to get vignetting. I only say this because the large diameter close-up lenses tend to be pricey.

SteB said:

I don't have this lens and so I have not tried this. My understanding
is that this is an exceptional lens for image quality, but it is not
quite so good at its closest focussing.

My experience is that if you use a lot of extension on a none macro
lens the image quality takes a big hit because they are not designed
to focus this close (they have no correction). I should imagine the
image quality will not be anywhere near as good as a true macro
because these have special correction in the close focusing range -
although it might still be reasonable enough to get a satisfactory
photograph.

Click to expand...

SteB said:

However, another alternative is to use close-up lenses such as the
500D and 250D. The advantage of these is that the lens can be
focussed at infinity but still get very close. You can get some
impressive images like this. An advantage is there isn't the same
light loss you get with tubes. As long as you keep the zoom at its
long end you can often use a much smaller close-up lens than the
filter thread fitting (with the appropriate stepping ring) and you
don't tend to get vignetting. I only say this because the large
diameter close-up lenses tend to be pricey.

Click to expand...

The main reason I'm thinking Sigma is price so the big diameter lenses are out, and what you said about light loss using tubes is something I hadn't thought about.

--

Dene said:

I have an incredibly sharp ef 70-200mm IS Canon, (f/4 version), and
I'm wondering how the IQ from that would compare to the Sigma when I
use my set of Kenko Extension tubes?
Anybody use those and what is the quality you get from them as
opposed to a true / proper Macro lense such as the Sig.?
Camera used: Canon 40D

Click to expand...

I have a 40D, 70-200 2.8 IS and extension tubes.
I'm not real sure what you mean by IQ but .......

First you are not going to get close to the magnification you would get with a dedicated 1/1 macro like canon 100mm/Sigma 150mm.

Second would be light falloff - You lose light for each tube you put on - Even if you could achieve 1/1 mag by stacking multiple extension tubes on a 70-200 the light lose would probably be next to unusable.

Extension tubes don't really degrade the image as there is no glass involved but you do lose a stop or so of light for each tube. All they really do is increase the sensor to lens distance allowing you to decrease the minimal focusing distance and therefor achieve a slightly higher magnification.

As far as using extension tubes plus a 500D closeup filter/lens on a 70-200 - I don't know what the magnification would be but I'm pretty sure it still wouldn't rival a dedicated macro lens and certainly wouldn't compete quality wise.

My 70-200 is also incredibly sharp but my 150 Sigma macro is still my sharpest lens.

I've used extension tubes on my 70-200 with excellent results but a dedicated macro is in another league as far as true macro work.

a big percentage of my photo fun is macro...
I have thought a LOT about the sigma (I have the 100 canon)

question:
How would one test / verify a 'good' copy of the sigma..
I have read decentering comments in more than one place..

I believe I would really enjoy a bit more working distance..
I never use a tripod... chasing bees...
but am willing to start on that whole approach.. (with both lenses)

so how will I know about the properly centered / good copy

yes yes - I know..... just shoot!

but what - on that worrying myth - do I look for

thanks

TOM

Thanks for the input, time to dust off my credit card then.
--

SteB said:

However, another alternative is to use close-up lenses such as the
500D and 250D. The advantage of these is that the lens can be
focussed at infinity but still get very close.

Click to expand...

This is not true. With a +4 dioptre lens, such as the Canon 250D, the maximum focusing distance becomes 250 mm + the length of the lens + 44 mm (registration distance, lens flange to sensor). The +2 dioptre Canon 500D does similar things, but with an additional 250 mm.

SteB said:

You can get some
impressive images like this. An advantage is there isn't the same
light loss you get with tubes.

Click to expand...

True

SteB said:

As long as you keep the zoom at its
long end you can often use a much smaller close-up lens than the
filter thread fitting (with the appropriate stepping ring) and you
don't tend to get vignetting.

Click to expand...

Not true, you will get vignetting.

Brian A.

Hugowolf said:

SteB said:

However, another alternative is to use close-up lenses such as the
500D and 250D. The advantage of these is that the lens can be
focussed at infinity but still get very close.

Click to expand...

This is not true. With a +4 dioptre lens, such as the Canon 250D, the
maximum focusing distance becomes 250 mm + the length of the lens +
44 mm (registration distance, lens flange to sensor). The +2 dioptre
Canon 500D does similar things, but with an additional 250 mm.

Click to expand...

Agree with this. You do lose infinity focus.

Hugowolf said:

Hugowolf said:

You can get some
impressive images like this. An advantage is there isn't the same
light loss you get with tubes.

Click to expand...

True

Hugowolf said:

As long as you keep the zoom at its
long end you can often use a much smaller close-up lens than the
filter thread fitting (with the appropriate stepping ring) and you
don't tend to get vignetting.

Click to expand...

Not true, you will get vignetting.

Click to expand...

I use a 58mm 500D closeup adapter on my 70-200/4 L (67mm filter) and get no vignetting, at any focal length. I wouldn't try it on a 72mm diameter lens, though.

Hugowolf said:

Brian A.

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,

bg

'I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.'

• Bjarne Stroustrup, inventor of the C++ programming language

Check out my gallery at http://beerguy.smugmug.com

(See profile for the gear collection)

peacnic said:

peacnic said:

I have an incredibly sharp ef 70-200mm IS Canon, (f/4 version), and
I'm wondering how the IQ from that would compare to the Sigma when I
use my set of Kenko Extension tubes?
Anybody use those and what is the quality you get from them as
opposed to a true / proper Macro lense such as the Sig.?
Camera used: Canon 40D

Click to expand...

I have a 40D, 70-200 2.8 IS and extension tubes.
I'm not real sure what you mean by IQ but .......
First you are not going to get close to the magnification you would
get with a dedicated 1/1 macro like canon 100mm/Sigma 150mm.
Second would be light falloff - You lose light for each tube you put
on - Even if you could achieve 1/1 mag by stacking multiple extension
tubes on a 70-200 the light lose would probably be next to unusable.

Click to expand...

You lose light even with a dedicated macro lens – the internal mechanism is not unlike a variable tube system once you get close to the minimum focusing distance. At 1:1 you will have two less stops of light than you would have had at ‘normal’ shooting distances with either the Sigma 150 mm or Canon 100 mm.

Using the 70-200 mm f/4 with tubes will have the related problem of a dimmer view finder. If tubes take it to 1:1, then it will be like looking through an f/8 lens.

A macro lens is always better for macro shots. Sooner or later you will want to spring for the real thing.

Brian A.

Both the things I stated are true and I think that maybe you have misread my post and don't have much experience of using close-up lenses on longer lenses.

Firstly, I said that the lens will get pretty close whilst it is focused at infinity with a close-up lens - not that it will focus to infinity. With say a +4 diopter lens like the 250D attached it would mean that if the zoom was focused at infinity and you screwed the close-up lens in, the focus point would then be 25cm in front of the close-up lens. The advantage of this is that lenses such as this zoom are designed to perform best at longer focus distances and that when they are focused close, they don't have the same optical correction that a true macro lens has. Macro lenses have floating elements that correct for things like spherical aberration when the lens is focused close. Therefore, by leaving a lens focused at the distance it is optimally corrected for and using a close-up lens to achieve this close-focus you don't get the same type of optical aberrations that happen if the lens is focussed closer or this is done with extension tubes. Such photos are noticeably sharper, and this is not derived from optical theory - but first hand experience of taking lots of such macro photos.

Secondly, I can put a close-up lens like the Raynox DCR-250 onto a lens with a large diameter filter thread, such as my Sigma 150mm which has a 72mm filter thread, and there is no obvious vignetting. Yet the DCR-250 has a male filter thread of only 43mm. I can clip it onto this lens when I have the 72mm (to 58mm) adaptor for the MT24EX flash attached. What is more I can use even more powerful close-up lenses that have a male thread of only 37mm and still get no obvious vignetting.

guitarist said:

question:
How would one test / verify a 'good' copy of the sigma..
I have read decentering comments in more than one place..

Click to expand...

I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone having a "bad copy" of the Sigma 150 macro - or any other macro lens for that matter. This seems to be the one area where all the manufacturers get it right.

To the OP - I now shoot with a Canon 100 macro - my friend that I shoot with every week has a Sigma 150. I don't believe there is any visible difference between images from either of theses lenses. I also have the Canon 180L and MP-E65. I sold a Tamron 90 macro (also a brilliant lens) to buy the 180L because I thought I'd like more working distance. What I actually found was that at the minimum focusing (1:1) the lens always seemed too far away from the subject - obviously because I was used to the shorter working distance of the 90 Tamron. A more major problem for me was the size and weight of the combination of a 1DIII or 5D with grip, the 180L and a MR24 ringflash. It proved to be too unweildy for the work I do - mainly insects hand-held in the bush, and I had trouble holding it still enough to allow for "sway" focusing (where you set the subject framing and magnification and then sway backwards or forwards to achieve correct focus). I bought the 100 Canon and am getting better results, though I am now using a 1.4 Tamron converter on it for a bit more magnification if I use it on my 5D. I didn't get the 150 Sigma as I thought it too close in specification to my 180L. BTW, my friend with the 150 Sigma also sometimes complains about having to get back from the subject further than you would think to stay within the MFD.

Also, regarding the Canon 180, the MTF figures don't show it to be superior to the other lenses you mention.

Earthlight said:

jgb said:

Which FL do you want/need.
How much weight do you want to carry.

Click to expand...

I prefer the longer FL as it gives better working distance. The
reason I'm comparing the Sigma with 100mm canon is the overwhelming
price of the 180mm Canon.

I could live with the 100mm FL however, if there were other
compelling reasons to get the Canon.

Weight is not a problem. I carry 1 to 2 tripods with me anyway.

I guess it's a Canon vs. Sigma thing, I'm afraid of any rechipping
issues in the future. I already have two Sigmas (8 & 15mm) though.
Canon makes no 8mm and the 15mm was such a bargain that I had to get
it.

Earthlight

--

Mostly harmless

Click to expand...

--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b

I'll second everything you've said. I really like the Sigma 150mm and I certainly won't be selling it. I use the MP-E 65mm a lot as well. However, I am missing something in the middle and I've always enjoyed working with lenses in the 90-105mm range and not having one for my Canon system has been a bit frustrating. I'll definitely be getting eith a Canon 100mm or a Tamron 90mm for next year. Its the end of the season for field insect macros now in the northern hemisphere so there is no point in my rushing into it yet.

Its difficult to put your finger on the exact reason why the longer working distance doesn't feel right to me with handheld flash photos. But for this type of photography the shorter lenses have their definite advantages.

SteB said:

I'll second everything you've said. I really like the Sigma 150mm and
I certainly won't be selling it. I use the MP-E 65mm a lot as well.
However, I am missing something in the middle and I've always enjoyed
working with lenses in the 90-105mm range and not having one for my
Canon system has been a bit frustrating. I'll definitely be getting
eith a Canon 100mm or a Tamron 90mm for next year. Its the end of the
season for field insect macros now in the northern hemisphere so
there is no point in my rushing into it yet.

Its difficult to put your finger on the exact reason why the longer
working distance doesn't feel right to me with handheld flash photos.
But for this type of photography the shorter lenses have their
definite advantages.

Click to expand...

The longer working distance may put your flash is at a shallower angle, which makes the lighting flatter. Close in, you have to angle the flash downwards more, which gives more pleasing shadows. I've also considered a shorter focal length macro for some situations, but overall I like the longer focal lengths, probably because I don't work with a flash all that much.

--
Cheers,

bg

'I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.'

• Bjarne Stroustrup, inventor of the C++ programming language

Check out my gallery at http://beerguy.smugmug.com

(See profile for the gear collection)