Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?  (Read 777 times)

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« on: February 27, 2017, 09:50:12 PM »

Before I get into my query, let me say, I would also throw the new Tamron 90 macro into the mix, except that, focal length-wise, it's too close to my 85, so repetitious. I rented the Tamron 90 macro and was very impressed by the results. If you don't have an 85, it's worth a look.

I have a 20 year old Canon 100/2 lens. It served me well in film days, but isn't quite up to the task of hi-res digital (at least my well used copy). I verified this using FoCal with the lens on both my 1Dx and 5Ds. The results were largely "acceptable" versus excellent for most of my other lens. so, I'm on the hunt for a replacement.

I've settled on getting a macro, not that I do a lot of close-up work. It's more for the versatility, but I'd use the lens largely for full figure fashion and beauty versus true 1:1 work. I borrowed the 100 macro IS from Canon CPS a couple of times. I liked it, though not really blown away by it. I didn't find the focus all that fast nor accurate. (Of course, anything I own, I'd calibrate with FoCal, so that's not that big a deal.) I tried to find the Sigma 100 Macro OS to rent for a shoot to try that out, but haven't found anyone who rents it. (My usual go-to is Lensrentals.com.)

Has anyone use the Sigma extensively and have thoughts on its AF and accuracy, but even more, resolving power? I find the 1Dx is, needless to say, more forgiving than the 5Ds. Thanks.

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2017, 10:51:16 PM »

i've shot the 100 is macro for some time and the 100 macro before that.  It's a very sharp lens and the IS adds to versatility (not quite up to the latest Canons but very good). However the autofocus is slow and i'd expect that the Sigma will have the same issue.  On the other hand there aren't non-macro primes in this aperture and focal length range with IS. 

As a result i usually use it for close up and landscape (good stitching lens) but use the 85 1.8 or 70-200 for things that move.
Logged

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2017, 11:39:32 AM »

Thanks for the thoughts. I, too, thought the focus speed of the Canon 100 IS was on the slow side. I guess it makes sense since the lens is somewhat optimized for close-up work, so the lens would focus more carefully at those distances. That said, I thought the new Tamron 90 Macro was actually pretty snappy and the IS (or VR as I think they say) works well. I've read decent things about the Sigma 105 macro, I just wish I could get a hands on to really make an assessment.

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2017, 12:35:24 PM »

have a look at the Sigma review on the-digital-picture.com, i've found his reviews consistent with my experience.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
Re: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2017, 11:29:30 AM »

All macro lenses have slower AF than corresponding FL non-macro lenses. All macro lenses are reasonably sharp - I don't know that I have run across an outright bad macro lens at macro and closeup ranges. I know that lots of macro fans like Sigma. I don't think that you can go wrong. Canon has more of a guarantee that its electronics will keep working with newer cameras. Sigma has the capability to update firmware in some, but not this, lens. Also, Sigma 105 seems to be on sale at BH.
Logged

Ghibby

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2017, 08:51:55 AM »

Tried both, AF on the Canon is a fair bit better, not for speed but accuracy, found the Sigma to miss the target a few times more often.  In the end I went for a manual focus Zeiss 100mm F2 Makro Planar as the image rendering was so much nicer I forgave the lack of convenience, lack of OS and even not quite maco 2:1 reproduction ratio. No regrets but it's a lot harder to use especially on moving subjects. When everything comes together it's in a league of its own though.
Logged

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2017, 11:13:14 AM »

I finally found an outfit that rents the Sigma Macro -- lensfly.com. Since most of the time I would use it for full figure plus beauty, and less so for actual 1:1, 1:2 work, this was the best option to try it out. I know what I get with the Canon macro. All the reviews seem to indicate that the Sigma macro delivers excellent results and at a significantly lower price. It'll remain to be seen how good the AF is. I have a Sigma 50 Art and 85 Art that I'm generally pleased with. Of course, the design and technology behind the Sigma Macro isn't the newest trend produced by Sigma.

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1455
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2017, 06:42:40 AM »

I tried the 50mm sigma art for macro using some extension rings and was impressed bij the results.
maybe an option?
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Canon 100 Macro IS vs Sigma 105 Macro OS?
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2017, 02:28:14 PM »

Yes, I've tried the Sigma 50 Art with extension tubes. It did a nice job. a bit of a pain fiddling with tubes to get the right combo. In my case, I'm looking for a combo of moderate tele with macro since I don't do a ton with macro and would tend to use it more as a short tele. The nice thing about macro lens is they tend to have less distortion, and in the case of the Sigma and the newer Tamron, low CA. At least based on DxOMark, it's disappointing to see relatively high CA on the Canon 100 Macro IS.
Pages: [1]   Go Up