Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon EF 100 mm f2.8 Macro vs Sigma AF 105 mm f2.8 Macro

Go to last post
I

ioannis

Veteran Member
Messages
6,618
Reaction score
1
Location
Baltimore, US
I m thinking of getting one of these two macro lenses. Does anyone have a real life comparison with both these lenses? How usable is a 160mm FOV 1 foot (minimal focusing distance) near the object? Shall I assume that the same lighting need be used with both these lenses?

Mind you that the sigma sells at $315 while the canon sells at $445. Is the Sigma compatible with the drebel? or will I need to get it rechipped to avoided err99?

Yiannis
 
ioannis said:
I m thinking of getting one of these two macro lenses. Does anyone
have a real life comparison with both these lenses? How usable is a
160mm FOV 1 foot (minimal focusing distance) near the object? Shall
I assume that the same lighting need be used with both these lenses?

Mind you that the sigma sells at $315 while the canon sells at
$445. Is the Sigma compatible with the drebel? or will I need to
get it rechipped to avoided err99?

Yiannis
Click to expand...
--Hello Yiannis, I just got the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX. It is very well built (metal body) and sharp. The min. focus distance is measured from the sensor so actual working distance is around 5 inches from the front of the lens. The EX version works fine on the Drebel. The AF hunts in low light, but so does my Canon 28-135 IS. It seems very usable at F/2.8 thru F/45(still testing). I chose it over the Canon 100 macro for price.($310.00 at Adorama.com) if you consider the free case and metal lens hood it's even a better savings. I have not used the Canon macro but I'm sure it's a little better. Hopes this helps.
Happy Shootin!!! CHRIS
http://www.pbase.com/ctosh
 
C. Tosh said:
ioannis said:
I m thinking of getting one of these two macro lenses. Does anyone
have a real life comparison with both these lenses? How usable is a
160mm FOV 1 foot (minimal focusing distance) near the object? Shall
I assume that the same lighting need be used with both these lenses?

Mind you that the sigma sells at $315 while the canon sells at
$445. Is the Sigma compatible with the drebel? or will I need to
get it rechipped to avoided err99?

Yiannis
Click to expand...
--Hello Yiannis, I just got the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX. It is very
well built (metal body) and sharp. The min. focus distance is
measured from the sensor so actual working distance is around 5
inches from the front of the lens. The EX version works fine on the
Drebel. The AF hunts in low light, but so does my Canon 28-135 IS.
It seems very usable at F/2.8 thru F/45(still testing). I chose it
over the Canon 100 macro for price.($310.00 at Adorama.com) if you
consider the free case and metal lens hood it's even a better
savings. I have not used the Canon macro but I'm sure it's a little
better. Hopes this helps.
Happy Shootin!!! CHRIS
http://www.pbase.com/ctosh
Click to expand...
Hi Chris,

Yes your answer does help a lot but i m wondering about the field of view 5 inches from a subject at an effective 168 mm (105mm x1.6 crop factor). Wont that setting exclude larger objects from the field of view? I guess one can always take a step back. At http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/105mmf28exmacro

there are some 200+ pics of this lens some being very impressive (shot with Sigma digital though).

Anyone else with good/bad experiences from the drebel + Sigma AF 105 mm f2.8 Macro EX combination.

Yiannis
 
I only have the Canon 100mm and am very happy with it.

http://homepage.mac.com/dreidesq/PhotoAlbum14.html
ioannis said:
C. Tosh said:
ioannis said:
I m thinking of getting one of these two macro lenses. Does anyone
have a real life comparison with both these lenses? How usable is a
160mm FOV 1 foot (minimal focusing distance) near the object? Shall
I assume that the same lighting need be used with both these lenses?

Mind you that the sigma sells at $315 while the canon sells at
$445. Is the Sigma compatible with the drebel? or will I need to
get it rechipped to avoided err99?

Yiannis
Click to expand...
--Hello Yiannis, I just got the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX. It is very
well built (metal body) and sharp. The min. focus distance is
measured from the sensor so actual working distance is around 5
inches from the front of the lens. The EX version works fine on the
Drebel. The AF hunts in low light, but so does my Canon 28-135 IS.
It seems very usable at F/2.8 thru F/45(still testing). I chose it
over the Canon 100 macro for price.($310.00 at Adorama.com) if you
consider the free case and metal lens hood it's even a better
savings. I have not used the Canon macro but I'm sure it's a little
better. Hopes this helps.
Happy Shootin!!! CHRIS
http://www.pbase.com/ctosh
Click to expand...
Hi Chris,

Yes your answer does help a lot but i m wondering about the field
of view 5 inches from a subject at an effective 168 mm (105mm x1.6
crop factor). Wont that setting exclude larger objects from the
field of view? I guess one can always take a step back. At
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/105mmf28exmacro

there are some 200+ pics of this lens some being very impressive
(shot with Sigma digital though).

Anyone else with good/bad experiences from the drebel + Sigma AF
105 mm f2.8 Macro EX combination.

Yiannis
Click to expand...
 
I have had both and kept the Canon mainly because of the neutral
color the sigma had a yellow tint as most sigma lens do...but both
were very good lens...can't go wrong with either IMO

Robert
 
Bryan (nice site, btw), could you comment on your experience testing the 100/2.8, relative to other similar Canon lenses such as the 100/2 or the 85/1.8? Specifically with regard to AF performance in non-macro applications?

I'm trying to make up my mind on the 100/2.8. The 'dilemma' is that I really, really want a true Macro lens on a DSLR. Perhaps as much as anything else, including the DSLR itself. However, I'm reluctant to spring the cash for a lens that would find itself in the bag for all non-macro situations. I'm hoping the 100/2.8 functions well as a portrait and general purpose short-tele. I have NO CONCERNS, OPTICALLY, only in terms of AF performance. So, I find myself torn between the desire for the 100mm macro and the desire for a fast (AF performance-wise), high-quality, low-cost portrait lens such as the 85/1.8. I'd love to get both, but I can't justify that to myself, just yet. If the 100/2.8 is a DOG on AF performance (non-macro), then I'd probably be able to talk myself into both. I'm hoping I don't have to. The extra money could be well spent in other areas such as adding a 50/1.8, filters, bigger CF card, etc.

While I don't expect to get 85/1.8-like AF performance from the 100/2.8, I'd like to think it's still quite useable in the non-macro role? (perhaps wishful thinking, on my part) Just how 'bad/slow' is the AF performance 100/2.8 in non-macro applications? Where I'm coming from, in AF terms, I'm likely to be excited over what many might think is 'slow'... my primary AF experience is with an older first generation AF 35mm SLR and modern Digital P&S (both which have similar AF performance, actually). Compared to the 85/1.8, for example, is the 100/2.8 REALLY that slow? I've seen many complain about the USM in the 100/2.8 being a misnomer while a few actually say the 100/2.8 is 'fast'.. perhaps those few were coming from a similar place as I, who knows.

I'm hoping you can shed some 'relative' light on the AF performance issues on the 100/2.8. I'd hate to drop $500 on a great piece of glass ($460 for lens.. $35 for the hood?!? Argh!) and have it be limited in practical use to it's macro function because I'll find that the AF performance is frustratingly slow or dodgy. If I could grab the 100 and know I had a great macro lens in my bag and, oh by the way, I've got this solid portrait/short-tele with me, too, then I'd be pretty excited about the 100/2.8 and wouldn't lose a lick of sleep over the 85/1.8 (for now). =D

Thanks for any insight you can offer on this issue for me.

icmp
Bryan Carnathan said:
Some sample pictures might help your distance and FOV questions:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Gallery/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens.aspx

Regards,

Bryan
--
See my gallery, read my reviews and tips:
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com
Click to expand...
 
but just in case. The five inches you mentioned is for 1:1. You can always have less enlargement if the object is big or show a smaller part of the object enlarged.

Duke
ioannis said:
C. Tosh said:
ioannis said:
I m thinking of getting one of these two macro lenses. Does anyone
have a real life comparison with both these lenses? How usable is a
160mm FOV 1 foot (minimal focusing distance) near the object? Shall
I assume that the same lighting need be used with both these lenses?

Mind you that the sigma sells at $315 while the canon sells at
$445. Is the Sigma compatible with the drebel? or will I need to
get it rechipped to avoided err99?

Yiannis
Click to expand...
--Hello Yiannis, I just got the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX. It is very
well built (metal body) and sharp. The min. focus distance is
measured from the sensor so actual working distance is around 5
inches from the front of the lens. The EX version works fine on the
Drebel. The AF hunts in low light, but so does my Canon 28-135 IS.
It seems very usable at F/2.8 thru F/45(still testing). I chose it
over the Canon 100 macro for price.($310.00 at Adorama.com) if you
consider the free case and metal lens hood it's even a better
savings. I have not used the Canon macro but I'm sure it's a little
better. Hopes this helps.
Happy Shootin!!! CHRIS
http://www.pbase.com/ctosh
Click to expand...
Hi Chris,

Yes your answer does help a lot but i m wondering about the field
of view 5 inches from a subject at an effective 168 mm (105mm x1.6
crop factor). Wont that setting exclude larger objects from the
field of view? I guess one can always take a step back. At
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/105mmf28exmacro

there are some 200+ pics of this lens some being very impressive
(shot with Sigma digital though).

Anyone else with good/bad experiences from the drebel + Sigma AF
105 mm f2.8 Macro EX combination.

Yiannis
Click to expand...
 
Well just to confuse things further I ve read and found (photographyreview.com from users at epinions.com and other places) that the Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro might be a better choice. It is priced between the ($460 canon and the $300 Sigma Macro lenses at of 100 and 105 mm respectively) and it is optically better than both unless one wants to use autofocus where the Canon is superior. Not many use AF for Macro though. Another drawback is that the tube extends a lot at macro and might scare away a subject. However, it is about $60 cheaper, comes with a 6yr warranty (the USA model) and comes with a hood (even without one the lens is very recessed apparently and there is thus little flare even without a hood).

Why isnt this easier ?

Yiannis
--

Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them. Aristotle
 
I have only used the Canon, and you would have to pry my cold dead fingers from around it...

The lens is sharp enough that I believe I am getting pretty much all the resolution I can get from the 10D sensor.

Colors are neutral, AF is FAST in normal focusing (i.e. not moving the focus mechanism all the way from infinity to minimum focus or vice versa). It is a GREAT portrait lens, or for any purpose where a high-quality 160mm equivalent prime is called for.

The full-time manual focus makes overriding AF a breeze, no fumbling for the switch.

The only downside I see is the fact that Canon does not provide the hood, and it should be used, the front element is not shaded at all, it's very close to the front of the lens. And Canon charges like $40 for the hood...

Still, I think the Canon has the edge due to the ring USM & color fidelity. enough rambling; just my 2¢
ioannis said:
Well just to confuse things further I ve read and found
(photographyreview.com from users at epinions.com and other places)
that the Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro might be a better choice. It is
priced between the ($460 canon and the $300 Sigma Macro lenses at
of 100 and 105 mm respectively) and it is optically better than
both unless one wants to use autofocus where the Canon is superior.
Not many use AF for Macro though. Another drawback is that the tube
extends a lot at macro and might scare away a subject. However, it
is about $60 cheaper, comes with a 6yr warranty (the USA model) and
comes with a hood (even without one the lens is very recessed
apparently and there is thus little flare even without a hood).

Why isnt this easier ?

Yiannis
--
Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness
that we deserve them. Aristotle
Click to expand...
--
'Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so' - Doug Adams
 
I've considered the excellent Tamron 90, but it lost my interest due to the reasons I'm wavering on the Canon for. Non-macro AF performance. I understand that I'll be less likely to fiddle with AF during macro use, but I fully intend to press the lens into double duty as an oft used portrait and general purpose short/mid-telephoto. This is where the Tamron would fall behind the Canon, by all accounts, and the Sigma 105 behind further still.

Nothing against the Tamron. Great lens. Arguably as good or slightly better than the Canon 100/2.8 as a macro lens... but... it needs to be more than that, if it can, and the Canon is the best candidate of the bunch to pull off the dual-use with the best non-macro AF performance of the bunch by all the accounts I've been able to find.

So.. can anyone comment on the Canon 100's NON-MACRO Autofocus performance? Am I, an original AF 35mm SLR user and Digitial P&S user going to find fault with it's AF performance? I want it to be pleasurably fast, but it doesn't have to be so fast I wet myself everytime I perform a half-press of the shutter! Slower than an 85/1.8 is fine. I just want/need it to be noteably faster than what I'm accustomed to now... otherwise I'll reluctantly settle on using it for Macro only (reconsider the Tamron, in that case) and get an 85/1.8 to do the portrait and general purpose short-tele I'm hoping for out of the Canon 100/2.8

Help?

icmp
ioannis said:
Well just to confuse things further I ve read and found
(photographyreview.com from users at epinions.com and other places)
that the Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro might be a better choice. It is
priced between the ($460 canon and the $300 Sigma Macro lenses at
of 100 and 105 mm respectively) and it is optically better than
both unless one wants to use autofocus where the Canon is superior.
Not many use AF for Macro though. Another drawback is that the tube
extends a lot at macro and might scare away a subject. However, it
is about $60 cheaper, comes with a 6yr warranty (the USA model) and
comes with a hood (even without one the lens is very recessed
apparently and there is thus little flare even without a hood).

Why isnt this easier ?

Yiannis
--
Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness
that we deserve them. Aristotle
Click to expand...
 
I had another webpage that includes the sigma but their results were similar. Tamron was better optically but Canon had better AF and was a better all around lens, however the Tamron was equally well built and at $100 (500-400 hood included) I d rather go with the tamron. Another comparison is here. Note that the Tamron extends a lot so it might scare your tiny object away but on the other hand the canon shows more flare: enjoy

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

If I had the extra $100 I d go for the Canon, while I m currently considering going for the $300 Sigma which is very sharp (not as sharp wide open) but has rather bad autofocus and some say a small yellowish cast. I havent decided yet let me know if you buy one or the other.

Yiannis
--

Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them. Aristotle
 
So.. can anyone comment on the Canon 100's NON-MACRO Autofocus
icmp said:
performance?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've tested it yesterday and was amazed how fast is the AF in non macro application. (and in macro you can easily forgot that MF is better than AF)

I don't know about tamron, but this IS a razor sharp fast prime with bonus 1:1 macro :)

You can try it in your shop before you buy - just to make you confident.
icmp said:
Nothing against the Tamron. Great lens. Arguably as good or
slightly better than the Canon 100/2.8 as a macro lens... but... it
needs to be more than that, if it can, and the Canon is the best
candidate of the bunch to pull off the dual-use with the best
non-macro AF performance of the bunch by all the accounts I've been
able to find.

So.. can anyone comment on the Canon 100's NON-MACRO Autofocus
performance? Am I, an original AF 35mm SLR user and Digitial P&S
user going to find fault with it's AF performance? I want it to be
pleasurably fast, but it doesn't have to be so fast I wet myself
everytime I perform a half-press of the shutter! Slower than an
85/1.8 is fine. I just want/need it to be noteably faster than
what I'm accustomed to now... otherwise I'll reluctantly settle on
using it for Macro only (reconsider the Tamron, in that case) and
get an 85/1.8 to do the portrait and general purpose short-tele I'm
hoping for out of the Canon 100/2.8

Help?

icmp
ioannis said:
Well just to confuse things further I ve read and found
(photographyreview.com from users at epinions.com and other places)
that the Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro might be a better choice. It is
priced between the ($460 canon and the $300 Sigma Macro lenses at
of 100 and 105 mm respectively) and it is optically better than
both unless one wants to use autofocus where the Canon is superior.
Not many use AF for Macro though. Another drawback is that the tube
extends a lot at macro and might scare away a subject. However, it
is about $60 cheaper, comes with a 6yr warranty (the USA model) and
comes with a hood (even without one the lens is very recessed
apparently and there is thus little flare even without a hood).

Why isnt this easier ?

Yiannis
--
Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness
that we deserve them. Aristotle
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
just another one captured to capture
 
It looks like I'll order my body + kit lens today. I'm considering sitting on the additional lens purchases until I get the body and can visit some shops (none I've been to in past weeks has 300D in stock.. so hard to try the lens with nothing to stick it on. No 10D's there, either. bummer)

If not, I'll be more likely to drop a few extra bucks to get the lenses from a vendor with a solid return policy so I can feel protected in making a purchase decision based largely on non-first hand research: full refund, no restocking fee, etc.

I'll be sure and post back my experience on the 100/2.8, specifically on it's usefulness outside of it's macro role. For me, getting the double-duty performance from this lens is important. No sense, for my purposes, having to drop another $330 on an 85/1.8 if I'll have the 100/2.8 in my collection already. Not yet, anyways. No real application for it that the 100 won't do for me, so long as it performs well as a portrait and short telephoto use.

I expect to use it pretty equally in each role. I'm hopeful Canon has a gem of a value waiting for me in the 100... otherwise, I'd be tempted to go with the Tamron if it was for strictly Macro use and only a very occasional use otherwise. It's optically considered the equal, perhaps a smidgen better on Macro use (including potentially useable AF in macro, if you're so inclined (not me, I don't think)). It's cheaper by about 40 USD, or therabouts (for the lens-only). And, as a potential additional cost savings it would seem that it could be used fairly reliably without a lens hood, if you're so inclined, while the Canon's design demands use of a hood in most applications (front element is near flush with filter ring, while Tamron's is quite a bit recessed).

Wish me luck!

icmp
Martin M8 said:
Martin M8 said:
performance?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've tested it yesterday and was amazed how fast is the AF in
non macro application. (and in macro you can easily forgot that MF
is better than AF)
I don't know about tamron, but this IS a razor sharp fast prime
with bonus 1:1 macro :)

You can try it in your shop before you buy - just to make you
confident.
icmp said:
Nothing against the Tamron. Great lens. Arguably as good or
slightly better than the Canon 100/2.8 as a macro lens... but... it
needs to be more than that, if it can, and the Canon is the best
candidate of the bunch to pull off the dual-use with the best
non-macro AF performance of the bunch by all the accounts I've been
able to find.

So.. can anyone comment on the Canon 100's NON-MACRO Autofocus
performance? Am I, an original AF 35mm SLR user and Digitial P&S
user going to find fault with it's AF performance? I want it to be
pleasurably fast, but it doesn't have to be so fast I wet myself
everytime I perform a half-press of the shutter! Slower than an
85/1.8 is fine. I just want/need it to be noteably faster than
what I'm accustomed to now... otherwise I'll reluctantly settle on
using it for Macro only (reconsider the Tamron, in that case) and
get an 85/1.8 to do the portrait and general purpose short-tele I'm
hoping for out of the Canon 100/2.8

Help?

icmp
ioannis said:
Well just to confuse things further I ve read and found
(photographyreview.com from users at epinions.com and other places)
that the Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro might be a better choice. It is
priced between the ($460 canon and the $300 Sigma Macro lenses at
of 100 and 105 mm respectively) and it is optically better than
both unless one wants to use autofocus where the Canon is superior.
Not many use AF for Macro though. Another drawback is that the tube
extends a lot at macro and might scare away a subject. However, it
is about $60 cheaper, comes with a 6yr warranty (the USA model) and
comes with a hood (even without one the lens is very recessed
apparently and there is thus little flare even without a hood).

Why isnt this easier ?

Yiannis
--
Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness
that we deserve them. Aristotle
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
just another one captured to capture
Click to expand...
 
I hope you enjoy your new lens! I think you will ...

If you look at my accessories review page...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Accessories.aspx

... you will see some of the equipment I am using. When I was using the Canon 100mm Macro, I primarily use a shoe-attached Canon 550ex with an Omnibounce (for redirecting the flash downward) and an IR-fired Canon 420ex remote (also with an Omnibounce.

My current preference is to use a Canon 550ex in an XXS Chimera Softbox. I either mount this on a light stand or the Wimberley ShapeShifter Macro Bracket. This is all great stuff - and most of it is on my review page.

Here is an example:



Here are some more:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Gallery/Chimera-Super-Pro-Plus-XXS-Softbox.aspx

Regards,

Bryan
--
See my gallery, read my reviews and tips:
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com
 
ICMP,

Thanks for the nice words.

I used the 100mm Macro primarily for macro work as I had other lenses better suited to me personally for the portraits I shoot (the Canon 70-200 IS is my first choice). However, if I had the 100 macro mounted, I didn't pass up any chances.

Regarding autofocus, I don't remember it being an issue. I did not use the lens for action sports, but autofocus seemed fine to me. If you go from 1:1 macro out to infinity, I'm sure there will be a lag. Just use the limiting switch to help with that.

The 100mm focuses MUCH faster than the 180mm macro - that I can say for sure.

The Canon 85 is better suited than the 100mm Macro for low available light work - faster apertures are their advantage here. Still, f/2.8 is not shabby. I have not personally used the 100mm f/2.0 - it has a good reputation though.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Regards,

Bryan
--
See my gallery, read my reviews and tips:
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com
 
I have a friend with the 100mm Macro from Canon. I have the 105mm f2.8 from Sigma. I like the Sigma better due to size, the great metal lens hood and case that are included and best of all the amazing photo quality I get with this lens. I don't have direct samples up, but there is not a lot of image difference between the Canon and the Sigma and you get more with the Sigma.

The Canon does have a little faster and far quieter focusing, but that isn't critical for a Macro lens.

From the tests I've seen and read, the Tamorn 90mm is actully a better lens then either of these, but I'm happy with the Sigma and it will work perfectly with your DRebel.

As to the crop factor, remember - it is still a 105mm Macro lens. It's NOT a 160mm macro lens. You would have to use a 160mm Macro lens to get the same shot at the same standing point due to the crop factor, but the magnification and size ratio is the same. It only goest to 1:1 unless you add extension tubes.

-John Lehmkuhl

The full gallery of my Sigma 105mm Macro lens:
http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl/sigma_105mm_macro

--
*********************************************************
Los Angeles Canon digital SLR Group -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacdg/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl
Lens Example Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl/lens_examples
 
Hello Bryan,

I've been a lurker on your website for an age now. I always enjoy your reviews and images.

I'm slowly building the never ending lens collection and am torn between the 100 macro and 180. The only thing that concerns me with the 180 is its hand hold ability. How is it in the field and just using a 420 ex ? What about availible light? I'm not one for using a tripod :)

By all accounts and purposes the 180 has superb optics and I guess that's what attracts me to it.

Thanks.
Bryan Carnathan said:
ICMP,

Thanks for the nice words.

I used the 100mm Macro primarily for macro work as I had other
lenses better suited to me personally for the portraits I shoot
(the Canon 70-200 IS is my first choice). However, if I had the 100
macro mounted, I didn't pass up any chances.

Regarding autofocus, I don't remember it being an issue. I did not
use the lens for action sports, but autofocus seemed fine to me. If
you go from 1:1 macro out to infinity, I'm sure there will be a
lag. Just use the limiting switch to help with that.

The 100mm focuses MUCH faster than the 180mm macro - that I can say
for sure.

The Canon 85 is better suited than the 100mm Macro for low
available light work - faster apertures are their advantage here.
Still, f/2.8 is not shabby. I have not personally used the 100mm
f/2.0 - it has a good reputation though.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Regards,

Bryan
--
See my gallery, read my reviews and tips:
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com
Click to expand...
--
ma g ~ D60 ~ 20 2.8 ~ 50 1.4 ~ 50 2.5 ~ 135 2 ~ 70-200 4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top