| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2004 04:51:19 PM · #1 |
Considering this lens. Anyone have experience with it? Comments?
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 05:38:31 PM · #2 |
I have one, it's superb. Very crisp, and sharp. Hunts a little to get auto focus, but I use manual focus for macros most of the time.
s soon as the current Macro challenge is up have a look at my entry it was taken with this lens. Also this image was taken with this lens 
I would recommend it.
Falc |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 06:01:18 PM · #3 |
Highly recommended lens. Also take a peek at my shot for Macro IV after the challenge. It was taken with this lens. It shouldn't be too too hard to find =)
You should do some forum searching here, there has been a lot of good past discussion on this lens and some of the alternatives.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 06:01:49 PM · #4 |
This lens looks very good, but here in the UK its about twice the price of the sigma 105mm macro.
Are there any big differences between the two? |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 06:09:00 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by marbo:
This lens looks very good, but here in the UK its about twice the price of the sigma 105mm macro.
Are there any big differences between the two? |
They are both very sharp, the main difference is the focus. The Canon has USM, relatively quick (dual-range switch), quiet. There's also the question of whether the Sigma will ever need re-chipping for yet-to-come Canon cameras (it likely will). This is because Sigma does not have a license for the Canon communication protocol, so when it's changed, there can be problems.
In the US, the price difference is not so steep, and I recommend the Canon wholeheartedly. For double the price, however, I'd think more than twice.
There's also the Tamron 90mm to consider.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 06:20:49 PM · #6 |
The 100 2.8 is easily my favourite lens.
Compared to the Sigma, the results seem to be pretty similar - both are really sharp, crisp lenses. The differences seem to be in handling - focus speed and the like.
The Canon 100mm is also a completely internally focusing lens (so it doesn't change length) and the front element doesn't move during focusing - handy for polarisers and the like. not sure if the sigma is like that or not. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 09:36:51 PM · #7 |
I love my Canon 100 f/2.8 ... I looked at both the Canon and Sigma before making my purchase. I don't regret my decision either. It's a really fast lens, excellent optics, pictures are sharp...
All of these images were taken with that lens Botanical Garden
Edit: These were also taken with that lens Botanical Garden Again
Message edited by author 2004-08-08 21:37:47. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 10:00:31 PM · #8 |
Wow, those are fantastic. If I have any money left, I'll pick one up at B&H while I'm on my trip to NYC.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 10:29:39 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The Canon 100mm is also a completely internally focusing lens (so it doesn't change length) and the front element doesn't move during focusing - handy for polarisers and the like. not sure if the sigma is like that or not. |
I have the sigma 105. It's comparable to the Canon in terms of image quality, but the Canon has the edge in focus performance. The sigma will hunt occasionally, but I haven't had a situation where this has been an issue.
The front of the sigma lens does extend significantly when focusing close. It does not rotate however, so it doesn't affect filter use.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 03:20:15 AM · #10 |
| Thank you all. After seeing jacko`s shots i might look at the sigma 105mm. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:21:04 AM · #11 |
| The Sigma lens still has the annoying double-action requirement for changing from AF to MF. For macro work this is not generally a problem (you'll probably want MF most of the time), but otherwise it's just dumb design. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:40:08 AM · #12 |
My feeling about Sigma lenses, and this is purely personal, is that the build quality is not upto that of a Canon. I have the 17-35mm Sigma, and its been back to the shop 3 times now. The focus motor just fails avery few months.
I will be saving up for Canon glass in future. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 10:09:11 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Falc:
My feeling about Sigma lenses, and this is purely personal, is that the build quality is not upto that of a Canon.
I will be saving up for Canon glass in future. |
Regarding the Sigma 105 macro, I would have to agree, the Sigma does not appear to be built to the highest standard. However, neither does the Canon 28-135 IS, which has a wiggly front assembly. Evidently, this is fairly common with the 28-135. Both lenses produce excellent images. I have not noticed any effect on images produced by either lens.
The build quality on the higher end Sigma lenses like my 12-24 and the 24-70 f2.8 I handled in the shop, is excellent and while it may not be to Canon "L" standards, it is certainly better than what I have seen with many "non-L" Canon lenses.
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 10:09:45.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 12:27:02 PM · #14 |
I think you might want to get rid of that lens. I think it happens to be the worst EX series lens from Sigma. I bought it used, didn't like it, then confirmed by many reviews that it is a very weak lens. Very soft. I returned it and got a Sigma 15-30mm instead. Big difference.
Originally posted by Falc:
My feeling about Sigma lenses, and this is purely personal, is that the build quality is not upto that of a Canon. I have the 17-35mm Sigma, and its been back to the shop 3 times now. The focus motor just fails avery few months.
I will be saving up for Canon glass in future. |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 06:18:29 PM EDT.
