Canon ef-s 60mm Macro OR Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX macro

tony0778

Presently, I have the Canon EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS kit lens that I use with my XSi. I plan to get a Macro and am considering the Canon EF-S 60 f2.8 (great reviews). However, I just noticed the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX Macro (does not have IS) which is almost the same price as the Canon 60. So finally the question...in order to use one lens for both general and macro photography, would it bewise (or unwise) to replace my Canon kit lens(18-55 IS) with the Sigma OR keep my Canon 18-55 and purchase the Canon EF-S 60 macro???
:dunno
My interest are: landscape and macro photography (e.g., flowers, lichen, etc.)

Thanks...Tony

ziggy53

tony0778 wrote:

Presently, I have the Canon EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS kit lens that I use with my XSi. I plan to get a Macro and am considering the Canon EF-S 60 f2.8 (great reviews). However, I just noticed the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX Macro (does not have IS) which is almost the same price as the Canon 60. So finally the question...in order to use one lens for both general and macro photography, would it bewise (or unwise) to replace my Canon kit lens(18-55 IS) with the Sigma OR keep my Canon 18-55 and purchase the Canon EF-S 60 macro???

My interest are: landscape and macro photography (e.g., flowers, lichen, etc.)

Thanks...Tony

Tony, welcome to the Digital Grin.

The Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC Macro is not a "true" macro in that it can only do 1:3 magnification (1/3rd lifesize) while the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro is a "true" macro with 1:1 lifesize magnifications possible.

I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC (the model before the "Macro" version) and it is a very nice lens and much better than the "kit" lens. It occasionally mis-focuses so it is now pretty much my backup lens for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM.

The Tamron SP AF 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] is probably a little better optically than the Sigma mentioned, but it has even less magnification for close focus (1:4.5).

I do like the combination of Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM and a diopter lens for close focus work. While not as good as a dedicated true macro lens, it is nice for the versatility as a very fast aperture for low light and a good native focal length for head shots and head-and-shoulder work on a crop 1.6x camera body.

Here are some examples of image quality:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=947583&postcount=8

craig_d

tony0778 wrote:

Presently, I have the Canon EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS kit lens that I use with my XSi. I plan to get a Macro and am considering the Canon EF-S 60 f2.8 (great reviews). However, I just noticed the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX Macro (does not have IS) which is almost the same price as the Canon 60. So finally the question...in order to use one lens for both general and macro photography, would it bewise (or unwise) to replace my Canon kit lens(18-55 IS) with the Sigma OR keep my Canon 18-55 and purchase the Canon EF-S 60 macro???

My interest are: landscape and macro photography (e.g., flowers, lichen, etc.)

Thanks...Tony

Considering only the two lenses you mention, I'd absolutely go for the EF-S 60 over the Sigma. As noted above, the Sigma is not a true 1:1 macro; it also doesn't have HSM (Sigma's equivalent of Canon's USM), so focusing won't be as fast or silent as the Canon.

Personally, though, when I went looking for a macro lens a while back, I ended up not buying either of these lenses, for two main reasons:

1. I prefer longer focal lengths for macros because you can work from a little farther away and you get better background blur (because the narrower field of view means there's less background to spread over the frame).

2. Even when I was using an XSi, I preferred lenses designed for full-frame cameras because I planned eventually to upgrade to full-frame. (I now have a 5D Mark II.) Also, full-frame lenses tend not to produce significant vignetting or corner softness on APS-C cameras since the full-frame corners aren't being used.

With these factors and my budget at the time in mind, I considered the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, but ended up choosing the Tokina AT-X M100 AF PRO D Macro, which is a very sharp full-frame 100mm f/2.8 macro that I was able to buy for about $200 less than the Canon EF 100mm macro. I have mostly been very happy with this lens. It isn't USM, so it doesn't focus as quickly as the Canon, and the front element extends (but does not rotate) during focusing, which isn't ideal for close-range macro work but is tolerable. Amazon currently lists the Tokina for $399.

Another possibility is the recently-announced but not yet available Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM macro, which adds IS to the capabilities of their current 100mm macro and raises the price to over $1000. I find this tempting because IS would come in really handy when trying to do hand-held macro work, but I'm waiting to see what the reviews say.

tony0778

Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for your feedback Ziggy 53 and craig d! After additional research, I agree with you that a macro lens would be my best option. Now I just have to narrow down my options!

ziggy53

For Canon cameras, the following are the macro lenses I would both consider and recommend:

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review

Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX macro DG
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/301-sigma-af-105mm-f28-ex-macro-dg-lab-test-report--review

Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/270-tokina-af-100mm-f28-at-x-pro-d-macro-canon-review--test-report

Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review

FWIW I did wind up purchasing the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 SP Macro (not the Di) for the times when I need a true macro lens.

paddler4

Tony,

The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro is a superb lens, and a real bargain at the price. It is reasonably lightweight, very well built, and has superb IQ and very nice bokeh. Also, full time manual focusing, which is nice on a macro lens. I have had one about a year, and I can't tell you anything negative about it. True, it won't work on a full frame camera, but if I ever buy a full frame camera, I'll just sell the lens.

I agree with Craig: the main issue is length. For flowers and in animate objects, the 60mm is fine, and it can double as a nice walk-around and portrait lens. For bugs, it is a little short, but still usable. I do lots of bugs with it. The 100mm 2.8 is also supposed to be a superb lens (I don't have one yet), and it has more reach for skittish bugs, but: it is more expensive, heavier, and harder to handhold because of the length (motion is a BIG problem with macro). Also, they are out of stock everywhere I have looked recently. There is a new L-series 100mm macro just out, with image stabilization, but it is about 2.5 times the cost of the 60mm.

so, it all depends on what you want to do and spend.

Dan

jjckfc

I agree on the 60mm - excelloent lens (and I have one for sale in the Flea Market

I've found the 100mm produces excellent images, but does allot of hunting in low-light. Have not used the 180 yet, nor gone to the trouble of tracking down reviews on the new 100mm IS.

To qualify the low-light statement, I use it underwater with a focus light - not the best environment!

Scott_Quier

I have the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 and know almost nothing about the other lenses. But, here's an image to I took last summer that really works (click on the image for the EXIF)



I've been nothing but pleased with this lens.

tony0778

Great color and detail!
Thanks for sharing Scott. I really like the color and detail from this lens. Enjoyed reading your blog as well!

GOLDENORFE

hi tony, i also shoot landscapes as well as macro.
& use the sigma 18-50 ex lens.pic quality far superior to the "kit" lens you get with camera. would be a very good move to replace kit lens.

even though it says macro, it isnt as already mentioned, but you could use a set of kenko extension tubes with it like this shot. although shooting distance very short! 2 inch for this shot! it is excellent pic quality for landscapes also.

someone mentioned focus speed and hunting, but almost all macro is shot with manual focus so "usm" on the canon is not of any real use. as will the "is" on the new version of the 100mm



for good macro lens go for either canon 100mm [ which i use ] , sigma 105 or tamron 90mm.
all are excellent . and using extension tubes on any of these will give around x2 magnification. which is needed to show good detail in most bugs!
hope this may help you.
phil