Canon 100mm vs Sigma 150mm Macro

Photo Joe · October 12, 2008

So my very humble lens collection is growing with a newly added wide angle, which means next up to bat is a better telephoto and macro lens. But for now my 55-250mm is adequate, so its time to do some research on macro lenses. I've been doing some reading recently, but would like to ask for some advice, and personal opinions.

Three lenses have sparked my interested (and still lie within my price range). Optic quality on all full macro lenses seem to be outstanding, so it comes down to other features when typically making a decision.

Canon's EF 100mm f/2.8 USM. I have yet to find someone who is unsatisfied with this lens. Almost seems to be a bread and butter macro lens that you can't go wrong with, and reviews seem to agree that its got one of the fastest AF motors when it comes to macro lenses, making it great for portrait use as well.

Sigma's AF 150mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM. Slow AF, but a larger WD than Canon's 100mm, and it also comes standard with a hood and tripod ring. So while initial cost is about the same, in the long run Canon's lens would cost more after accessories.

Sigma's AF 105mm f/2.8 EX DG. I haven't done as much reading on this one, but optically speaking its on par with Canon's 100mm, though the barrel extends while zooming, and over all build quality is lower. On the other hand, its most affordable of the three lenses, though I'm primarily looking at the previous two lenses.

And advice you can offer when it comes to macro photography will be greatly appreciated. If I end up enjoying macro photography enough I'll start looking into flashes and equipment, but of course it all start with a lens.

Tee Why · October 12, 2008

I don't know a macro lens that isn't optically fine.
I'd go with which focal length you want more than anything.
The best 100mm macro won't help you if you really need a longer focal length or vise versa.

Photoskipper · October 13, 2008

I got the 100mm f2.8 macro for almost 4 years. it was my second lens for dSLR on top of those inherited from the old film body.

I bought it mainly for the F2.8 as it was the "cheaper" portrait lens with larger aperture. It worked well with the 300D then also the 5D later.

The fast focus and able to focus in low light is very useful for the outdoor marco.

Using my old 58 mm close up lens is a plus to get a bigger magnification and just acquired the 25 mm macro ring gives more close up and higher magification.

It is a bit heavier and fatter lens compare with other non-L lens.

Robinivich · October 14, 2008

I would say that the 150mm (which I own) might be a little on the steep side for someone jumping into macro for the first time, it's a quite long focal length on a crop camera, and might be frustrating until you've gotten used to framing and focusing at high magnifications, just finding your subject in the viewfinder is hard.

100mm will be easier to learn, but won't hold you back much (if at all) if you choose to get quite serious. When I bought the 150mm I had already spent around a year shooting with a 50mm setup at almost 2:1 magnification, so I had a lot of practice finding things in the viewfinder. The working distance is great now that I have a flash with a bracket that mounts to the tripod ring, but without flash as a starter lens, the 150mm would be very difficult to learn with. I use mine almost exclusively with a 430EX flash on an off camera shoe cord attached to a wimberley macro flash bracket, and I guess I'm spoiled, since I find things very difficult (though not impossible) without them.

Of the three lenses you mention, I would consider the 150mm the best macro lens, but it's tied with the 100mm canon for best "overall" thanks to the more manageable focal length and apparently very nice AF. Only choose the 105 if you prefer budget to ease of use, full time manual focus and internal focusing are worth big bucks in my opinion.

Photo Joe · October 14, 2008

I've heard someone else mention that they would recommend the 100 for macro beginners since the 150 can be a difficult focal length to start with. I think despite that I'm still leaning towards the 150. It comes with a hood and tripod collar (canon can just be stingy for not bundling those at times), plus the extra WD is always a plus when shooting outdoor critters. The final decision is still a little ways out as I collect funds, but on the up side I think no matter what my decision both are fantastic lenses from reviews and first hand accounts.

Thanks for all the input.

swintonphoto · October 14, 2008

Here are some great reviews that could help your decision:
Sigma 105: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/221/cat/30
Sigma 150: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/180/cat/30
Canon 100: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/157/cat/10

Honestly, all three look excellent optically. The 150 looks amazing frankly.

Robinivich · October 14, 2008

Photo Joe wrote:

I've heard someone else mention that they would recommend the 100 for macro beginners since the 150 can be a difficult focal length to start with. I think despite that I'm still leaning towards the 150. It comes with a hood and tripod collar (canon can just be stingy for not bundling those at times), plus the extra WD is always a plus when shooting outdoor critters. The final decision is still a little ways out as I collect funds, but on the up side I think no matter what my decision both are fantastic lenses from reviews and first hand accounts.

Thanks for all the input.

Glad to be of help, and I don't think it's possible to make a bad choice between those two! Post pics once the financing comes through!

Matthew Saville · October 15, 2008

Photo Joe wrote:

I've heard someone else mention that they would recommend the 100 for macro beginners since the 150 can be a difficult focal length to start with. I think despite that I'm still leaning towards the 150. It comes with a hood and tripod collar (canon can just be stingy for not bundling those at times), plus the extra WD is always a plus when shooting outdoor critters. The final decision is still a little ways out as I collect funds, but on the up side I think no matter what my decision both are fantastic lenses from reviews and first hand accounts.

Thanks for all the input.

Nothing but gorgeous images from the Sigma 150 Macro, I just love the lens. INSANE sharpness at 2.8... Honestly the dead-center looks identical to f/8 almost. It is just ridiculously sharp.

I love the true HSM. Canon's 100mm has the cheapo "fake" USM, rod-type, I think. (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, people!) All I know is that I have at least shot with the Canon 100mm and it is no good as a normal lens, (focusing at infinity) not for AF performance nor sharpness. While the Sigma 150mm works fantastically at infinity, and so for me it doubles as a wildlife lens, and is sharp enough to work fine with a 1.4x teleconverter... Great all-around outdoor telephoto lens, especially for crop-sensor photographers who may need that extra reach from 150mm...

=Matt=

Images captured with this lens, like I said, range from macro to wildlife, 1:1 to infinity....

Photo Joe · October 16, 2008

Wow, beautiful shots Matt, thanks for sharing. I think I just made up my mind. Now its just a matter of saving pennies. This is such a dangerous hobby, its so much fun, but my 'need' to collect lenses is becoming my vice, haha. I can't wait to get my hands on a lens this sharp and teach myself macro photography!

Canon 100mm vs Sigma 150mm Macro

Comments