Daniel Flounders , Sep 06, 2010; 06:46 p.m.
Hi,
Just got my awesome EOS 5D MKI finally, after years of wanting it!
And yes it may be old now, and all you lot might be laughing at me ;) but this thing is sooooo divine to use and the images it produces are impressive, even on not so great lenses.
Anyway, enough of my off-topic rant!
I want a macro lens shortly, I don't use my gear professionally obviously, but given I have a trait of partial perfectionism I need something reasonable.
Now I'm a little retarded like many others and JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE CANON BADGE.... normally.
But I'm learning and leaning towards Sigma as an alternative and I'm wanting to shoot various insects and plants but nothing specific until I find something that really interests me.
Here's what I'm thinking;
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro - USED but Mint condition + 6 month warranty @ £324.00 ($498.86)
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro SLR Lens - NEW @ £389.99 ($600.46)
or
Sigma 180mm f/3.5 EX DG HSM Macro SLR Lens - NEW @£498.00 ($766.76)
If anyone has any advice on the above or my introduction to the macro world, speak now or forever hold you tongue ;)
Thanks
Daniel
Mark Pierlot 
, Sep 06, 2010; 06:59 p.m.
Like you, I usually stick to Canon EF lenses. But I recently picked up a used Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro (after reading some glowing reviews of it), and I have to say that I've been very impressed with it thus far. It's extremely sharp, and has excellent colour rendition and contrast.
I got a macro lens primarily because I was frustrated with the long minimum focussing distances of some of my non-macro lenses. But I like using the Sigma so much that I've been doing some true macro work with it.
I know you're not asking about the 70mm, Daniel, but I have no reason to believe that the longer Sigma macros aren't just as good.
Brett Cole , Sep 06, 2010; 07:42 p.m.
They're all superb, top notch lenses and you can't go wrong with any of them. Personally I'd get a Sigma 180 in a heartbeat. You have to decide what focal length you want. The Tamron 90 and 180 are also superb. The 180 is a steal at $650. If 100mm represents a gap in your focal length coverage you may go for one of the 100s instead since it can serve as a portrait lens as well. Don't expect fast AF on any of them though, at least not in line with your other lenses if you have lenses like the 70-200 f4, etc.
Geoff Francis , Sep 06, 2010; 07:53 p.m.
The Canon macro 100 f2.8 USM is as good as it gets. You won't be dissappointed with it. I expect the Sigmas are good too. Most macro lenses are sharp. I have owned Sigma EXs before (not macros) but never been fully happy with them and always ended up selling them to get a Canon.
If you use the focus limiter, the Canon will focus quite fast. It also has very accurate focussing.
BTW my Canon 5D still produces stunning 13x19 prints, same as it always did despite its supposed obsolescence.
Eric Merrill , Sep 06, 2010; 08:06 p.m.
Daniel:
If you decide to sell your lens, a used Canon lens that hasn't been abused will retain its value for several years. In fact, it's quite possible to turn a profit on said lens since you're already buying at the used price.
I could sell several of my lenses that I bought new and break even. Third party lenses tend to depreciate faster.
Just something to think about from an economic standpoint.
What lenses do you currently have? You might be happy with a close-up lens or extension tubes for now.
Eric
Brett W. , Sep 06, 2010; 08:16 p.m.
they're all good. I chose the Tamron 90mm 2.8 - very sharp !
Steve Muncy 
, Sep 06, 2010; 10:14 p.m.
I can't speak to the Sigmas, but I've been extremely happy with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro for several years. It is great for macro shooting, but I use it for much more than that - in fact, from me it gets more use in NON-macro shooting. Sharp as a tack.
Alan Bryant , Sep 07, 2010; 12:00 a.m.
I've got the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 and I like it a lot. Very sharp, a long working distance, and it doubles as a medium telephoto. I've used the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and it's a great lens as well.
Paul Russell , Sep 07, 2010; 04:41 a.m.
I have the sigma 70mm, one of the sharpest lenses out there, perfect on my 7d, bit of an odd choice for a FF mind you, closer working distance etc. If I were buying again I would probably opt for a lens with internal focus such as the EF-s 60mm (no use to FF users) or the 100mm f2.8 USM II.
To go beyond 100mm you really must need the extra working distance. The 100mms (my 70 is equiv to a 110 on my body) double as perfect protrait lenses. Not so the 180s. Just a thought.
Robin Sibson , Sep 07, 2010; 06:46 a.m.
What sort of close-up/macro work are you going to do? If you have a high priority for butterflies and dragonflies, then 150mm/180mm on FF may not even be long enough, but is certainly better than 100mm/105mm for the harder-to-approach species. 150mm/180mm/200mm is also preferred for some types of medical work. For just about all other purposes, around 100mm on FF is much more convenient to use than the longer lenses. Later on you might decide you need a long macro as well, but you are unlikely to want it as a replacement, so my advice is definitely to go for either the Canon 100mm or one of the off-brand lenses in that range. If you don't want to spend the money on the optimal choice, the Canon 100/2.8L IS, and you have tracked down a good s/h Canon 100/2.8USM, don't hesitate for a moment.
If you do go for the Canon lens, and you want a tripod ring for it, I have a genuine Canon one sitting on the shelf, left over as a result of my upgrade to the L IS lens. I am in the UK (near Gloucester) and you can contact me by email if it might be of interest. Moderators – hope this does not count as advertising – apologies if so, won't transgress again!
