A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Canon 60mm macro vs. Sigma...

Featured Equipment Deals

Latest Equipment Articles

Sun Position Tracking Apps Read More

Sun Position Tracking Apps

These 5 apps, ranging in price from free to $8.99, are our top picks for tracking sun (and moon) light. Also ranging in complexity, some help you keep tabs on the ideal lighting of the day while...

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: Rag Mama Rag! Read More

State of the ART: Rag Mama Rag!

In his latest exploration, fine art photographer Pete Myers reviews and compares some of the highest quality rag-based photographic papers on the market today.


Canon 60mm macro vs. Sigma 70mm?

Tom Worster , Apr 02, 2008; 09:09 p.m.

The reviews at pop photo and photozone give the Sigma the edge in image quality -- the Canon vignettes wide open and the Sigma is sharper off-center -- though both are clearly very good. Advantages to the Canon are USM autofocus (faster, quieter) and that it doesn't extend when focusing, which should help keep dust out.

Thoughts?

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Mike Earussi , Apr 02, 2008; 09:44 p.m.

You nailed it, optical quality vs USM. Which is more important to you?

Geoff Francis , Apr 03, 2008; 01:04 a.m.

In this instance I'd go for the Canon. For macro work you won't be shooting wide open and for potrait work vignetting won't matter as much and you will want USM. The Canon is reportedly very sharp anyway so evn if the Sigma is a bit better it may not be noticeable in practice. My impression is that Sigma suffers a little bit more in terms of quality control too.

Finally I much prefer internal focus designs, not just for dust but also for handling.

Geoff Francis , Apr 03, 2008; 01:07 a.m.

Ps I should add that I would and did actually go for the Canon 100 f2.8 macro.

It is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 60/2.8 macro but I prefer the longer working distance both for macro and portrait work as well as the focus limiter.

Yakim Peled , Apr 03, 2008; 04:34 a.m.

The PZ test leaves little to be desired. Also, USM and IF/RF mean a lot to me, even in macro. I have the 100/2.8 and toying with the idea of adding the 60/2.8 as well. The Sigma 70/2.8 is not even a consideration.

But as always, YMMV.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Rainer T , Apr 03, 2008; 05:07 a.m.

Just one thought to be added to the mentioned tests at PZ ... these tests are done with focus at (or near) infinity. Eventually the situation in the macrorange isn't the same. I would still think that both are very decent lenses, but for macro work, you shouldn't derive too much from these tests.

Yakim Peled , Apr 03, 2008; 06:29 a.m.

None of the pictures I saw on the web indicated that it is anything but excellent in macro shots.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

T.P. Lyons , Apr 03, 2008; 10:08 a.m.

Hi, here is another link that has a Canon EF-S 60mm Macro review. (link)

Best

Tom Worster , Apr 03, 2008; 11:51 a.m.

What are the trade-offs of the Canon 60 vs 100 macros?

Even more than close-up photos, I'll be shooting ceramics typically between about 4" and 16" high. Maximizing depth of field is very important. Do I get more DOF with the 60 and the camera closer to the subject that with the 100?

Large photo attachment:
(Teapot -- 534 x 800 photo)

Bob Atkins , Apr 03, 2008; 02:02 p.m.

DOF is the same. For all practical purposes, at the same macro magnification, DOF is always the same whatever lens you use. You may be able to influence it a fraction by using retrofocus or telphoto lenses with a pupil magnification other than 1, but generally speaking with "normal" lenses, DOF is pretty much identical at the same magnification ratio.

The 60 is smaller, lighter and cheaper. The 100 gives you more working distance and covers full frame.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses