Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

Started Oct 24, 2009 | Discussions
Roguey Regular Member • Posts: 193
Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

hi there,

I was hoping for some advice from you guys. I have a recently moved into FF (5D mk II) and wanted to get a macro lens for it - I miss macro.

My 40D (which I no longer have) had the 60mm Macro. I often found that the the working distance rather short (9 cm). I was often having to get 'too' close for my own comfit.

However now, I have choice:

Canon 100mm f/2.8
Sigma 150mm f/2.8

The Canon 100mm seams like more 'safe' choice. The working distance is more (than the 60mm), the AF is 'quite' fast/quiet and isn't too heavy?

However the Sigma 150mm, gives more working distance, slower AF? (is it louder?) and weights a bit more. It is also hard to find the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 in-stock anywhere.

I do have a Kenko 1.4 extender as well. I guess that it will fit onto both lenses (without any extension tubes) and AF is kept on both? (I read somewhere that the Canon 100mm f/2.8 loses AF?). I guess the extender will increase working distance or magnification, depending if I move further away.

So, which lens would you recommend?
Many thanks,

ps. the Canon 100mm f/2.8L seams nice, but is 'out-side' what I want to pay for a macro lens.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)

Malcolm_Stewart Contributing Member • Posts: 764
Re: Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

Roguey wrote:

hi there,

I was hoping for some advice from you guys. I have a recently moved into FF (5D mk II) and wanted to get a macro lens for it - I miss macro.

...

However now, I have choice:

Canon 100mm f/2.8
Sigma 150mm f/2.8

The Canon 100mm seams like more 'safe' choice. The working distance is more (than the 60mm), the AF is 'quite' fast/quiet and isn't too heavy?

However the Sigma 150mm, gives more working distance, slower AF? (is it louder?) and weights a bit more. It is also hard to find the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 in-stock anywhere.

My Sigma 150 macro was way outside the AF MicroAdjust capability on my 1D MkIII. (Like +30!!) Sigma UK adjusted it under warranty and it's now fine. Just be wary of getting a used sample, I suppose. The USM on my EF 100 f2.8 macro is really fast away from 1:1. It's tracked flowers blowing in a breeze. Haven't put the Sigma to the same test yet.

-- hide signature --

Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

David Franklin Senior Member • Posts: 1,046
Re: Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

My Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro is the only non L Canon lens I have. I used to own the Canon 180mm macro which was quite good, but, believe it or not, the Sigma is a little bit better optically. I haven't used either the old 100mm macro or the new one with IS, but I don't think it could possible top the Sigma optically; what separates it from others of its type is that the Sigma is just about as good as you can get wide open. Stopping down doesn't harm the image until refraction limits - an amazing performance for a third-party lens.

Unlike its sterling optical performance, the 150, while very very nice and sturdy for a third party lens, doesn't quite measure up to an L lens in build or focus speed. And its included tripod collar won't fit on a 1D series camera due to interference between the camera and colloar shapes. Finally, while the camera to subject distance is improved over a 60mm optic, it isn't proportionally increased, due to its optical contruction. From its distance-to-subject/image size abilities, you woiuld assume it to be more like a 120mm lens - a minor matter, but one of which to be aware.

Good luck,
David

Keep learning; share knowledge; think seriously about outcomes; seek wisdom.

OP Roguey Regular Member • Posts: 193
Re: Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

Malcolm_Stewart wrote:

My Sigma 150 macro was way outside the AF MicroAdjust capability on my 1D MkIII. (Like +30!!) Sigma UK adjusted it under warranty and it's now fine.

This is one thing which worries me about Sigma lenses.

David Franklin wrote:

Sigma is just about as good as you can get wide open. Stopping down doesn't harm the image until refraction limits - an amazing performance for a third-party lens.

Sounds good, although the only thing I read that's more of a problem is that Vignetting (took from a review site: " full frame users are going to see over 1 stop of shading in the corners. "). Is it a problem?

Unlike its sterling optical performance, the 150, while very very nice and sturdy for a third party lens, doesn't quite measure up to an L lens in build or focus speed. And its included tripod collar won't fit on a 1D series camera due to interference between the camera and colloar shapes.

I am guessing there's no problems fitting it on a 5D Mk ii? Dont many people consider the Canon 100mm f2.8 a L kind-of lens?

Finally, while the camera to subject distance is improved over a 60mm optic, it isn't proportionally increased, due to its optical construction. From its distance-to-subject/image size abilities, you would assume it to be more like a 120mm lens - a minor matter, but one of which to be aware.

hmmm, so youre saying that the Sigma 150mm acts more like a Sigma 120mm? So, not much of an increase over the Canon 100mm?

-

One question id like to ask, How well does a Kenko 1.4 extender work with either lens? (Sigma 150mm / Canon 100mm) Will it fit without any extension tubes, do you keep AF and how badly is the IQ effected?

-- hide signature --
Malcolm_Stewart Contributing Member • Posts: 764
Re: Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

David Franklin wrote:

... And its included tripod collar won't fit on a 1D series camera due to interference between the camera and collar shapes.

When I first read this yesterday I didn't understand; and now that I've got my Sigma 150 f2.8 macro (with tripod collar) easily mounted on my 1D MkIII and with space to spare, I'm even more puzzled! Any chance that you've got the collar mounted the wrong way round on the lens, or is yours an earlier 1D?

(What I don't like about Sigma's current finish is how easily it picks up talcum powder! Don't ask...)

-- hide signature --

Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

Stefan Bruckel Senior Member • Posts: 1,255
How about 180mm f3.5 with MT-24EX

I prefer the bokeh and working distance I get with the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM macro lens, even for handheld photography. Due to the very shallow depth of field when shooting subjects at 1:1 or similar, I find shooting in the f11 ~ f 16 range necessary. I can’t recall a set up where shooting at f2.8 would have been either necessary or practical, although perhaps there are macro settings where shooting at f2.8 would be ideal (and thus better than the maximum f3.5 the 180mm lens allows)?

Many of my macro subject are moving or get blown around by the wind, requiring a handheld approach and a minimum shutter speed of 1/200th, which inevitably requires use of a flash. I use the Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Ringlite Flash to illuminate the subject (I prefer it to Canon’s MR 14EX Ringlite because it’s easier to create a visually more interesting lighting set up… although some find the light the 24EX emits “too harsh”). Another downside of this set up is that it requires use of the flash macro ring lite adapter 72C, which is not required for Canon’s other macro lenses. Finally, this lens does not (yet?) come with IS, which I assume would enable more handheld shots when a flash is not available.

If bokeh and working distance are key to the images you plan to capture with your macro photography, I’d recommend going with a longer lens set up, similar to the one outlined above. Good luck!

OP Roguey Regular Member • Posts: 193
Re: How about 180mm f3.5 with MT-24EX

hi there,

For me, the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM is too much (its nearly double of that of the Sigma 150mm) in price.

I would be using the lens mostly hand-held and without flash (for now) - can only afford an lens at the moment. I wanted the lens for insects, bugs, static things, flowers (I have a 24-105 which does fairly well but not 'small' flowers etc.), low-light situations (f2.8 after-all) and 'fun' (got some great shots from the 60mm macro).

I was thinking that a Sigma 150mm might be hard to hand-hold; increased weight and maybe a bit long for a good shutter speed, the reasons why I thought about the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro (lighter, less shutter speeds required, less light-fall off, faster AF (same as the 60mm macro?) and canon brand). I guess whatever I do, I will get more working stance than a 60mm macro.

please note: I have nothing against the Canon 60mm macro (apart from the short working distance); just like a macro on my FF camera.

ps. please if anyone could let me know if a Kenko PRO 300 AF 1.4x will work on either lens, how much IQ is effected and if AF still works.

Many thanks,
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguey/ (My pics)

wolfpuppies3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,747
Have the Sigma 150 Macro for my 5DII but if I did it again

I would go for the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM. It is lighter, easier to hold, the 100mm makes more sense to me than 150 in retrospect (I also have a 60 EFS I bought for my 20D. I usually end up using a tri or monopod with the Sigma 150.
--
Photography at the speed of sound.

jrscls Veteran Member • Posts: 6,075
Re: Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

In the same shoes, upgraded to 5D II but I kept 40D as backup. Sold all EF-S glass including the 60 macro, which was the last to go since it was my favorite crop lens. Bought the 100mm f2.8 (non-L) and am very happy with it. If you liked the 60 on crop, you are going to be pleased with the 100 on FF, which can double as portrait and macro glass which was how I used my 60.

 jrscls's gear list:jrscls's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm +1 more
Stefan Bruckel Senior Member • Posts: 1,255
Re: How about 180mm f3.5 with MT-24EX

OK, then I'd go for the 150mm... similar to reasons for going with the 180mm... one critical item form macro is background... and a longer lens allows you to cut out more of it for better bokeh. It is so much easier to isolate a smooth background with a 150mm ~ 200mm macro len relative to 100mm or shorter...

sundial New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

Has any one on this forum used the Tamron 180 Macro with the 5Dmk2? How does it compare to the other macro lenses for this camera?

Sulka Haro Regular Member • Posts: 163
Tamron 180 + 5D mark II (samples included)

sundial wrote:

Has any one on this forum used the Tamron 180 Macro with the 5Dmk2? How does it compare to the other macro lenses for this camera?

I have the Tamron 180 + 5DmII.

The lens is optically pretty awesome and I'm very happy with the IQ. A couple samples with fairly little post-process sharpening:

Now, what I'm not happy about (coming from 40D & Tamron 90mm macro) is how difficult the combination is to shoot with, mostly due to DOF being even more constrained than before. This combo will give you good results, but at the cost of being extremely demanding in your technique.

I'm considering saving up to get the new Canon 100mm macro lens with the new IS system - I got to see the lens and the IS actually seems to work. I'm shooting a lot of my shots hand-held, so effective IS would be awesome.

sulka

-- hide signature --
Stefan Bruckel Senior Member • Posts: 1,255
Re: Tamron 180 + 5D mark II (samples included)

... or, if you like the long lens, like I do, maybe wait until Canon updates their 180mm macro lens with IS... and maybe a faster auto focus too? Maybe 200mm to match Nikon? I would think a 200mm macro lens with hybrid IS would be one of my favorite lenses, generating more keepers than what I can do without the IS version (given most of my macro work is also handheld due to moving subjects).

Sulka Haro Regular Member • Posts: 163
Re: Tamron 180 + 5D mark II (samples included)

Stefan Bruckel wrote:

... or, if you like the long lens, like I do, maybe wait until Canon updates their 180mm macro lens with IS... and maybe a faster auto focus too? Maybe 200mm to match Nikon? I would think a 200mm macro lens with hybrid IS would be one of my favorite lenses, generating more keepers than what I can do without the IS version (given most of my macro work is also handheld due to moving subjects).

Sure, I'd be very interested in that lens. Of course, looking at Canon pricing, I'd assume it'd cost at least €2k.

-- hide signature --
RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,245
Sigma 150 because it comes with tripod collar

The Sigma 150 comes with a tripod collar, and I have the lens. Great macro lens, very sharp even wide open.

The Canon 100 macro does not come with a tripod collar and it would cost $150 extra! I would think 100mm on FF is not close enough, though you didn't state what you shoot with a macro.

And I don't see the point of IS in a macro lens. I find myself swaying "to and fro" when doing a handheld macro shot (to and away from my subject) and IS only compensates for movement side to side. When you move to and away from your subject at such close distances, the focus can greatly change ruining your photo. So IS for macro shooting is a waste of money IMHO!

RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,245
I think you're talking vertical grip issues

David Franklin wrote:

And its included tripod collar won't fit on a 1D series camera due to interference between the camera and colloar shapes.

I doubt this is really the case. I have a 5D, EOS-3, and EOS-1v. The only issue I have with the Sigma's tripod collar is using it with a quick release plate for my manfrotto 410 geared head. For my Sigma 150, I simply turn the quick release plate around so the plate doesn't interfere with attaching the combo onto my tripod.

Yes it is backwards from how the tripod was designed to take cameras, but I have yet to have a situation where I was unable to get my camera to where I wanted to take a photo.

My Sigma Bigma has no issues with my cameras and tripod because the tripod collar is further away from the end of the lens.

ajimon Regular Member • Posts: 276
Re: Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

Hi,

I was using 100f2.8 with my crop cams. But after having moved to the full frame world, it was time upgrade. Having read a lot of review and suggestions, I decided to go for sigma 150f2.8 This lens is crazy sharp even at f2.8, well priced, very good build, excellent tripod collar. This is my favorite portrait lens as well. No regrets at all.

I will suggest you borrow both these lens and do the necessary tests for yourself. You are the best judge for your kind of photography.

-- hide signature --

Ajimon

oldfartwitha5d Senior Member • Posts: 1,476
Re: Sigma 150 because it comes with tripod collar

I also like my Sigma 150mm better than my old 100mm macro, on both of my 5Ds (mkI and mkII). I now also have the new 100mm L, with IS, and I cannot agree with your comment that (the new, hybrid) IS doesn't work. Have you tried it yourself? See also:

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_hybrid_IS.do

Cheers,
Eyvind
--
http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/

 oldfartwitha5d's gear list:oldfartwitha5d's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 +11 more
Oystein Soreide Contributing Member • Posts: 536
Re: Macro: 100 or 150 for 5D mk II

The longer is the better with macro.

Easier to get nice blurred background for same framing, and having more space between the camera and the stuff you are shooting.

You are getting quite close with the 100mm as well, you really should go a long as possible lens.

RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,245
macro camera motion diferent than motion for other uses

oldfartwitha5d wrote:

I also like my Sigma 150mm better than my old 100mm macro, on both of my 5Ds (mkI and mkII). I now also have the new 100mm L, with IS, and I cannot agree with your comment that (the new, hybrid) IS doesn't work.

But does the new IS compensate for motion TO and AWAY from your subject? No it doesn't! Macro camera motion is more to and away from your subject while telephoto lens motion, and most other motion is lateral and because your focus distance is not extremely close!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads