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

Many great pics with these macro lens, has anyone printed at a size bigger than 12x18 ? Some of these pics would make great enlargements with such a vibrant colors.

Thanks,
Yiannis
--

Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them. Aristotle

Bryan, thanks for the feedback on this lens. I did, as I indicated in an earlier post on this thread, FINALLY bite the bullet today digital SLR body.

Tomorrow I intend to phone in an order for a small group of lenses, 50/1.8 (backordered, without a doubt), Tamron 28-75/2.8, and the Canon 100/2.8 Macro. I'm hoping (perhaps against hope) that phoning in to order several lenses, filters, and a hood will give me the opportunity to haggle on price, a bit. At least enough to offset shipping costs. Can't hurt to try.

Thanks for your responses and your ver useful website. Once I get the body and lens together for a go, I'll post back my personal opinion and observations on the 100/2.8's apparent ability to perform well as a multi-function lens.

If it does what I expect it to, I think it'll be a great value-buy for me. Also, my wife will thank Canon for not extracting additional funds away from her pending purchase of a new ring. =) The deal is: I get to replace my 35mm with digital, she gets a new 'past, present, future' diamond ring she's been eyeing. Somehow, she's getting the better of the deal in terms of the monetary split (hmm.. maybe I should've held out for a 1D MarkII after seeing that ring!). I'm not complaining, though. She deserves the ring more than I deserve the camera, of that I'm certain.

Thanks for the help,

icmp

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...

My wife once got 2 cats and I got a ski boat. The caats are long gone, but we still have the boat.



Keeping the wife happy has to be a priority - if it can fit together with your hobby it is even better! Did you see my post about the flowers I got the wife for Valentines day? They made great dreary winter day subjects! We are both happy.

Regards,

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

Well, I just typed a book in response - and apparently my session timed out or something. Lost everything. New lesson - when typing a large post, copy everything to the clipboard before you hit enter!

I'll try again.

I'm glad you found my site helpful - that makes it worthwhile!

The 100 is certainly less portable than the 180 - but weight without the tripod collar is not that different. Maybe 1/2 pound? The 180 does take a higher shutter speed (or bright flash) to handhold without motion blur.

Macro photography begs for a flash or a tripod. You typically need a wide aperture because of the narrow depth of field at macro distances - natural light shutter speeds are usually too low to handhold.

The extra working distance the 180 provides helps an unaided shoe-mounted flash get light down to the close subject better. The 100 needed an Omnibounce (or other reflector) for anything close. You can get away without the Omnibounce a lot more on the 180 (I have not been using this technique much lately though).

I think you will get by just fine with a 420ex mounted above the 180.

I chose te 180 because I wanted the ultimate image quality possible. I take pictures for essentially 3 reasons. First is for memories (my family, events ...). The second is because someone is paying me for them. The other reason is because I am trying to get great pictures. My macro lens gets used mostly for the the last reason. My standard is constantly rising - and the 180 is definitely not my limiting factor!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-180mm-f-3.5-L-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Let me know if I missed anything!

Regards,

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

Ahhh don't you hate it when that happens eh ?!

Anyway, thanks for the great information. Especially regarding the flash.
Very helpful indeed. It sounds like a winning combo to me at least.

I'm excited about the world of lifesize macro as up until now I've been using the (still) wonderfull compact 50mm macro.

I look forward to seeing more new images upon your site.

jacon

Bryan Carnathan said:

Well, I just typed a book in response - and apparently my session
timed out or something. Lost everything. New lesson - when typing a
large post, copy everything to the clipboard before you hit enter!

I'll try again.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/jacon For some of me pics.

Regards,

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

I am also considering to buy Canon 100 mm macro.
Can someone send some 100% crop photos so I can see
real sharpeness of this lenses?

How far from object you must be to shot 1:1 with these lense
on 350D?