Quote:
Originally posted by gregr
Regarding the Sigma pros and cons-- just a few things I'm noticing as I look at the specs: Sigma is cheaper  , Sigma has max aperture of f45 versus f32 on the Canon. In real life that probably won't be hugely significant though. Minimum focus distance is 12" and 6" on the Canon so you get a little more working room. However- the big plus on the Canon over most of the competition is the internal focus ability. On most macro lenses the lens barrel extends outward as you focus closer, but not so with the Canon. Unfortunately I can't tell from the specs on the Sigma if it features internal focusing  After looking around some more I'm pretty sure the Sigma does not focus internally, so that would be the main downside.
|
You're correct, I don't believe the Sigma 105mm has internal focusing - BUT Sigma does make a macro with it, the 150mm.
Which if the OP is willing to consider it is also a very capable macro lens (I've heard both of optics being on par with that of the 100mm Canon macro, and build quality close to that of L glass).
ct_vol:
All three lenses, 100mm Canon, 105mm Sigma, and the 150mm are all very nice and capable lenses (don't forget the 60mm EF-S macro either). You probably can't go wrong with any of them, lot of what it might come down to is how much working space you need and/or which you'd rather have - a 100, 105, or 150mm prime for those times you're NOT using it as a macro lens. If you also plan to chase things like insects the more working space you can get is usually the better to keep from spooking them, just taking pictures of your tank working space isn't AS important really because isn't like your corals are going to get up and fly off
, but its nice to have room to get full 1:1 macros of those corals not close to the glass. They are all very capable of delivering great results.