Canon 100 of Sigma 105 for Macro

[Gerrit Laubscher]

Thanks again for the comments on the 24-70 or 24-105 earlier.

The question is now which of the Canon or Sigma lenses you will recommend for macro - again based on IQ. Thanks in advance.

[Gerrit Laubscher]

Maybe I should add that I refer to the IS version of Canon.

[SimonDP]

Sort of wondering on this one myself, have played with the Sigma and was very impressed, never with the Canon (IS or non-IS), thinking the IS can be very useful.

[Mike Wrankmore]

Well i have the Canon 100mm(non IS L) and the IQ is superb.....reading all the write ups....the IS L version is the same as far as IQ goes...but with the benefit of IS and the L build quality.So far i haven't had the urge to upgrade....
If it was me i would stick with the Canon....but have no experience with the Sigma's.It would be hard to beat the IQ of the Canon!

[Alvin]

The Sigma 105 macro is on par with the Canon 100 (non L Macro) as far as IQ (sharpness)
However - the Autofocus on the Sigma is even slower than that of the Canon (non L Macro)
2nd hand the Sigma makes for a great deal - as it should be cheap - R2500
whereas the Canon (non L Macro) will hold value at arround R3500
The Canon 100 L Macro is not just a Macro lens - it's Autofocus is fast and usable where fast AF is required.
Can't compare the 100L with the Sigma Macro (compare the Canon non L Macro with it though)

[Gerrit Laubscher]

Thanks everyone. I have made up my mind about the Canon IS after reading the reviews but just wanted confirmation from people using it. Sounds like a realy great lens to have - not just for critters.

[Chris F]

I have the Canon 100mm Macro with IS - STUNNING lens !!

not just a macro lens, but also an alround prime lens. Where it is possible to zoom with your feet this is an EXCELLENT lens.

and as a macro I am very happy with it.

[brogan]

Hi there,

I have a Tamron 90m F2.8 macro, and am very happy with the IQ, the AF is useless! But the manual focus is smooth and very very easy to get used too. I have not used the Sigma 105, but the 100 macro non IS and L I have had a chance to try in the shops...I will not swop out my Tamron to the Canon because the differences in IQ does not constitute the price difference.. IS on a dedicated macro lens is not useful in macro work, as you should be shooting with a tripod. Save the little bit of money and buy the non L, IS 100m Canon and buy a good tripod (if you do not have one already)

[Mike Wrankmore]

It always asounds me that people say you should be shooting macro with a tripod.....99.9% of my macro work is done hand held.....where IS(if it works well) would be a godsend!!!

[Russ]

It always asounds me that people say you should be shooting macro with a tripod.....99.9% of my macro work is done hand held.....where IS(if it works well) would be a godsend!!!

ditto

[bomtek]

As has been said, the Sigma is horribly slow to focus but the IQ isn't bad.
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...each01&cat=500

You can't really compare the Canon L IS to the Sigma, comparing peaches to pears, no pun intended

[Dave_]

I would say it depends on what you intend to use it for. I have the Canon 100mm L version. It is either my favourite lens or second favorite depending on the day.

The IQ between L version and non L is basicaly identical. So, if you are dedicating it to Macro, then the non L version is perfectly ok (of course depending on if you use a tripod or not, IS is a bad move on Tripod based Macro).