DSLRUsers.com

I presently have the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro. Great lens, 1:1 etc etc.

I bought it before the Sigma 180mm f3.5 macro came out.

Now I am starting to think about selling my Canon 100mm Macro to get the Sigma. Main reason is for the extra focal length ... but I'd like to hear peoples opinions about what is a good focal length for macro.

Sometimes I find I have to get too close with the 100mm. Having said that, it is great for handheld (yes, I know, shouldn't do macro h/held, but anyway) as it is only 100mm and it is f2.8. The Sigma is 180 and slower, which kinda forces the issue of needing to use a tripod.

My main interests for macro are small insects and flowers (is there anything else to shoot in Macro anyway?).

So for those of you that own and use it - what are your thoughts? I guess even owners of the Nikon 200mm macro could chip in with their thoughts, as that is a similar focal length. I think there is even someone on here who has used all 3 lenses - you know who you are

I look at eBay prices on the Sigma and figure it'll work out to be an almost zero cost changeover after I sell my Canon. This is because the Canon does not come with a hood or tripod collar, whilst the Sigma does. So if I were to buy the Canon hood and tripod collar (about $250 ... which I will buy when I get more serious with my macro work) well I only need to sell my Canon for about $600 and I'm fairly sure I will easily get that amount.

I have seen quite a good images from the Sigma floating around, it looks pretty damn good in photos (the Canon is no slouch either).

I also look at it as a prime in my collection. Eg for travelling light, I take my 17-40 and my 100 macro, and leave my 70-200 f2.8 at home (as the 100 is 2.8 so gives me a reasonable fast tele). The Sigma is longer - but slower; so I'm not really sure how useful it would be as an "all-purpose" prime instead of the Canon.

I guess the other thing is that if I ditch the Canon, I can't use Canon's excellent Macro Ring lights (which I have been contemplating purchasing). But I am thinking of buying another 580EX and using two 580EXs offcamera for my macro lighting rig, rather than a ring flash. But that then forces me to use a tripod, whilst the ring lights would still allow me to shoot handheld.


Ideally I'd love to keep the Canon and buy the Sigma; but well, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon

Why not get the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 - you will have reach plus f/2.8

I know that Fozzie has this lens and I tried it out when he is was in Sydney and it was excellent.

But in saying that, the Sigma 180 can use the Sigma 2x converter as well. whilst the 150 cannot.

sirhc55 wrote:Why not get the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 - you will have reach plus f/2.8

I know that Fozzie has this lens and I tried it out when he is was in Sydney and it was excellent.

But in saying that, the Sigma 180 can use the Sigma 2x converter as well. whilst the 150 cannot.

Buy the Nikkor 200/f4 and use Canon adapter, only MF though.

You talk about the Sigma being slower than the Canon, I presume that is f2.8 vs f3.5 but if you are doing macro work then f16+ is where you should be anyway.

The sigma isn't a light weight lens and without going home and testing would nearly weight as much as the 70-200f2.8 (non IS) so you wouldn't leave the 70-200 at home in preference.

While handholding is difficult it is more than doable and I feel a lot easier than settting up a tripod etc., especially for speedy bugs.

maybe the 150 is a good compromise although I don't see it being all that much lighter.

Have you considered the Sigma macro lights. I've never played with them but apparently they are better than the Nikons

I shoot all my macro stuff handheld. Not patient enough for tripod I suppose, so that would be a big factor for me.

Hey Chris...

Handy knowledge about the 150 vs 180 and tc2 compatability. I wasn't aware of this difference and explains why one would go for the 180 over the 150. Always new things to learn around here !!!

The beauty of the Sigma EM140 macro flash over the Nikon is its ability to use the full iTTL features of the D70/s

Thanks all for your replies.

Didn't know about the 150 - shall investigate.

petal666 wrote:You talk about the Sigma being slower than the Canon, I presume that is f2.8 vs f3.5 but if you are doing macro work then f16+ is where you should be anyway.

Yeah I know. I guess that was more for when using it as a 'prime' for other work. And its only what, half a stop anyway ...

The sigma isn't a light weight lens and without going home and testing would nearly weight as much as the 70-200f2.8 (non IS) so you wouldn't leave the 70-200 at home in preference.

Oh, interesting. Hadn't thought about that - I sort of assumed it wouldn't be much more than the 100 - being a prime, and a bit slower. That does complicate things then.

While handholding is difficult it is more than doable and I feel a lot easier than settting up a tripod etc., especially for speedy bugs.

Yes, its poor technique on my part. I'm like Pippin - not patient enough. Maybe my new tripod will make me happier - I used to get very frustrated with my old tripod.

maybe the 150 is a good compromise although I don't see it being all that much lighter.

Have you considered the Sigma macro lights. I've never played with them but apparently they are better than the Nikons

No, I haven't looked at the Sigmas. To be honest I really like Canons macro lights, but as I said, I may end up just going for a pair of 580EXs mounted either side. I already have one 580EX, and a second one is still cheaper than the cheapest Canon macro light (and about the same once I buy the ST-E2 transmitter ... or I could buy two 420EXs for not much more than a single 580EX, and use the 580EX as the master to trigger two side mounted 420EXs, thus giving me 3 sources of light ... but I digress).

Couple of people mentioned the TC, what's the quality of it like with using a 1.4x TC?

I guess the other thing is that with the 180, the DOF is even smaller than the 100 at the same aperature ... hrm.

Hi Dion i had the 150mm sigma macro it & a 16-35 mm is all i took on that trip to HK/China , if the 180 is anything like the 150 go for it, it's a very sharp lens, the one thing with a longer lens is you need a tripod most of the time i wont take a macro shot with my 200mm unless its on top of one

DionM wrote:I guess the other thing is that with the 180, the DOF is even smaller than the 100 at the same aperature ... hrm.

True which means you have to stop down even further which means more flash

Couple of people mentioned the TC, what's the quality of it like with using a 1.4x TC?

The Sigma 1.4x hardly dents the image quality at all. See my images down a bit in this post http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php? ... highlight=[/url]

I have been using the 150 since shortly after its release and it uses both Sigma APO EX TCs. It is chipped to provide AF with the 1.4 TC and to only allow MF with the 2.0 TC. I asked Sigma why and they told me that that they were not confident that it (150 + 2X TC) would perform to the same standards as the lenses the TCs were specifically designed for so they disabled AF with the 2.0 TC.

The 180 performs similarly in that it will AF with the 1.4 TC and MF with the 2.0 TC.

The Sigma 180mm (which I have and love) WILL take the Canon macro flashes. On Canon's smaller macro lenses they include the flash mounting ring, but on the Canon 180mm Macro they don't: Canon produce the Macrolite 72C which screws onto the lens's 72mm filter thread (the Canon & Sigma 180mms have the same thread) and the flashes (MR-14EX or MT-24EX) attach to it.
The Macrolite 72C is US$30 @ B&H.

Obviously the Sigma 1.4x is the best TC for this lens, but if you have it the Kenko Pro300 1.4x does a great job also (the Canon TC simply will not fit).