Which one is better Sigma F/2.8 EX DG 70 mm Macro or Canon F/2.8 100 mm Macro? I'm interested in picture quality.
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.
1646079
The Imaging-Resource.com used or maybe still uses the Sigma as their "reference lens" for evaluating DSLR image quality. Their website states/stated that it was the sharpest lens they ever tested.
552636
I had a Canon 50mm 2.5 macro ,it is real reliable, it is an older lens, very sharp also great for portrait work it creates a soft bokeh.
1917125
I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA... » Read More I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. « Show Less
1756269
As a professional photographer myself, I weighed both options heavily prior to purchasing the Sigma 70-200 which I absolutely love! The quality is amazing. I did ask other photographers who owned the tamron lens and paid the cheaper price but defined the sigma lens as the better deal. One of the main reasons is construction of the lens. They reported the tamron lens having more problems after a few years and going 'soft' due to the plastic casing whereas the sigma didn't-making it a better choice for the money. I think the sigma lens will pay for itself this year.
77696
Biggest difference is close focus distance. The 50mm f/1.8 will only focus at 1.5 feet or farther, and this means that the subject won't fill the frame. Canon claims that the 60mm Macro will focus at 7.8", but in practice I've gotten it to focus at less than five inches. The subject will get really--REALLY--large at that point. The difference is that if you take a picture of a penny with the macro, the penny will fill the entire image. With the fifty, the penny will only be a much smaller portion of the image when shot as a closeup, since you can't get as close. Brian www.alwaysanamateur.com
725617
I use my Sigma religiously! It has actually become my favorite lens! As far as a comparison, I do not own a Canon version and have not tried one. Many reviews here http://reviews.cnet.com/lenses/sigma-apo-70-200mm/4505-13038_7-35643871.html
1183537
I have tried both and frankly I actually prefer sigma version. Why? Price and speed. 85 is very temperamental, it has to be perfect for it to work good, and do we have perfect clients who dont move? I work with children and do travel photography, sigma is my perfect friend. See photos on my blog at larissakphotography.com/blog
1199011
My opinion goes against some other comments. I use a Sigma 150-500 and Sigma 70-300 (the newer version) on my D7100, shooting motorsports, where the speeds reached are quite a bit higher than kids playing football, and the focusing speed is very good, especially on the 120-300. I've never lost a shot due to slow focus, even when panning as the cars go by at 150mph+. I've used the 20-700 Sigma, and it's even a bit faster.
368611
I tested both the Tamron and Sigma 70 to 200 f 2/8.`and this is my review. Every one is hot for fast AF, well the Sigma had fast AF, but the pictures it took sucked. The Tamron with its AF system took Great photos, but had slower AF. I don't know what you want, but I want great pictures. As far as sporting events go, set lens to inf., and shoot away, no problem. Thats the way it was done before all this AF. Hands down Tamron wins. I could have got the Nikon version of this lens, but even if you can afford it, what wrong with bang for the buck?
2065297
135 or even the 100 mm macro. I own all three and the 200 is nice but the 135 is amazing
1787338
Any thoughts for general / home photography? I have a Digital Rebel XSI and recently bought the 70-200 mm F2.8 IS version mainly to photograph school events without the annoying flash, and take closeups of my rapidly-growing kids. I have been going back and forth between the two lenses (24-70 F2.8 vs. 24-105 F4.0 IS) but my instinct is that F2.8 is much better than F 4 even with IS. Any guidance appreciated from a professional.
543323
Hi, I'm a Nikon user. I'm not sure about Canon's 50 1.8 but this Sigma is better than Nikon's 50 1.8, 1.4D, and even 1.4G in terms of the overall better IQ, contrast, and creamy bokeh. The only problem is to get a "good copy" with accurate AF. Sigma is infamous for the QC for this last generation lenses.
176052
Get the version with a built in focus motor unless you like manual focus all the time. This one's better: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Motorized Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon SLR Cameras
81976
I bought the sigma right after I got my 6D, Sigma makes the lens with a canon mount. It works fine, and I like the ability to shoot at f 2.8 it makes light come from everywhere. Excellent lens. The Sigma "DG" series is made for full frame and the 3/4 cameras. It is super quiet and fast as well.
725619
This lens compares with and outperform the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L USM, I purchased this lens after my Canon broke down, I purchased the Sigma lens and have been use it more than the Canon Lens, fantastic lens and costs half of Canon's price.
357725
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range. But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too. Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
916480
It depends on what you like to shoot. I am a novice to the photography game and I have several lenses in my arsenal. I own the 100mm macro, 17-40mm L, 17-55mm, 70-200mm f4L and the 50mm 1.8. My favorite two are the 100mm macro and the 70-200. Both give me sharp crisp images. I tend not to use the 50mm much any more. If I needed that focal lenght I would chose the 17-55 which is fast, great in low and the images are superb. For a general vacation lens combo, I take the 17-55 and the 70-200mm.