Macro lenses - how good is the 100L?

Started May 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
happysnapper64 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,417
Re: Macro lenses - how good is the 100L?

Airbus5466 wrote:


Reading some magazine reviews about macros, it seems like the Sigma 105 and the Tamron 90 is considered to be the best in group. The Canon 100L while not bad seems to be less sharp and the Nikon 105 VR is far behind the others. On the plus side for Canon is build and weather sealing... The Sigma and Tamron clear test winners. The standard non L 100 macro is considered to be sharper by the way...

What do you make of this? I love my Sigma 35 mm 1.4 art, is it time to consider a Sigma instead of the 100L? Anyone with experience from all of these lenses?


Hi Eric. I have the non L Canon 100, & any bad images I take with this lens are the fault of the photographer, ME. It is as good as most, even close to the L. I would check for yourself if you can, but I think you will find hardly any difference between them all in real life use. I have just bought the Sigma 150 OS, & it is a beautiful lens, but the biggest advantage it has over my 4yr old Canon is a longer working space for macro, [15" compared to about 9"]  stabilization, & focus limiter. The limiter is of little use [I leave it set on full] as I use MF for macro anyway 95% of the time.

-- hide signature --

lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

 happysnapper64's gear list:happysnapper64's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow