Canon or Sigma 100 macro lens

[seansrs968 10]

Between the two what would others recommend? I see Tamron has a 90mm..I currently use a Tamron 60mm f2 and love it.

[meltdownman 2]

Recent trip to St Croix using Canon 100 mm

 

Steve

Spotted Cleaner Shrimp Canon 5D MII with 100 mm

 

Steve

Shot about 15 feet away with Canon 100 mm

 

 

[rtrski 20]

Beautiful shots! The shrimp looks a little oversharpened to me but that might be processing for web. It's a far better shot than I've ever gotten, and makes me look forward to my first trip underwater with a 105mm even more. Thanks for sharing them!

 

To the OP, I don't shoot Canon, so haven't looked at the specs, but I suspect any spec differences such as sharpness, etc. are minimized by the fact you'll be shooting behind a (likely acrylic) port that's going to be optically imperfect, as well as through water that might be clear, as water goes, but certainly isn't as optically clean as air. Tiny differences in color rendition due to the selected glass in the lens are also going to be overwhelmed by all the typical fun we have with white balance and strobe lighting underwater.

 

If there's a reported big difference in focus speeds, or if one has optical stabilization that the other doesn't, which you can take advantage of, then factor that in of course. The Sigma's do I believe all have a limit switch for the focus range, which is a feature that can be useful, that might be another discriminator if the Canon doesn't. The only other spec besides focus performance that probably matters much is minimum focus distance between the two, but again that is modified by the port (air/water interface), and easily altered with diopters as well depending on how "macro" you want to be shooting.

 

I went thru the same dilemma (in my case Sony 100mm 2.8 vs. Sigma 105mm 2.8), and opted for the Sigma. Even bought the 'older' Sigma without OS, since my body has sensor stabilization, to save a few more bucks. I'll probably very rarely shoot at much wider apertures than 5.6 underwater, and didn't see any reason to think that very slight differences in sharpness would make up for lack of skill on my part in actually getting the razor thin focal planes where I wanted. Now if you also intend to use the camera above water a lot, and consider yourself a lot better photographer already, then tiny performance differences might indeed matter to you. And full disclosure which might totally invalidate my advice: I haven't even taken it underwater yet. First chance coming up in 2 weeks!

 

My (amateur) advice would be haunt ebay, or B&H and Adorama's used departments for both [or whatever equivalent for you if not stateside, I don't see a location in your profile], and see what pops up for either one. If you do go eBay use due diligence and only bid on lenses that show *actual* unit being offered pics from individuals (not stock images), and do a search on closed listings ahead of time to get a feel for the typical selling price range so you don't get tempted into overbidding.

[Cerianthus 55]

check if the sigma extends during focus, that is a disadvantage. Both the older Canon 100mm USM and the newer one with IS are a fixed length.

[rtrski 20]

The older Sigma 105mm does extend (don't know about the newest version, or next-to-newest version with OS). But behind a flat port, I don't see how that matters much underwater. Behind a dome, sure, you don't want to move your nodal point around.

 

I guess with the Canon (which appears to be a longer lens, although it doesn't extend) your overall port is a little shorter, letting you get a little closer to the subject if the minimum focus distance allows it, but I don't see that as a huge discriminator myself. Minimum port-to-subject distance gets limited by being able to get lighting in there.

 

Please educate me on why extension matters behind a flat port?

 

Found this review which shows relative lengths extended and not, if it helps the OP. They weren't terribly kind to the Sigma's focus speed, FWIW, but I haven't found myself displeased, yet. Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

 

 

Oh, and the filter thread on the Sigma is smaller, so diopters will be a little cheaper too.

[famorim 0]

 

Please educate me on why extension matters behind a flat port?

 

 

I did tests with Sigma macro lens in the past and I found couple issues about their extension movement:

 

1) you need to have a bit more long extension ring that will force you to get the port more close to the subjects. If you use a wet close-up filter for super macro, you will probably need to touch the subject. Some critters doesn't allow that, making you job hard to get a picture.

 

2) Due the needs to have more distance between the lens and port glass you should have some vignetting when the lens is retracted and you use a wet close-up filter like subsee or aquatica.

 

cheers

[rtrski 20]

Thanks for the response. I didn't really think you'd be able to see vignetting with a macro and a flat port, but I didn't consider the close-up diopter effect.

 

Under one week to my first chance to try mine out, and with a homemade fiber lightpipe ring flash setup.

[mattia 0]

I have the sigma - optically it is great, but AF is very slow compared to every other Canon lens I have, and the fact it changes length is annoying. I got it cheap, and it has delivered some great photographs (topside, still building my kit to go underwater) but if I was buying a macro now I would get the canon L or the older non L canon macro.

[famorim 0]

Thanks for the response. I didn't really think you'd be able to see vignetting with a macro and a flat port, but I didn't consider the close-up diopter effect.

 

Under one week to my first chance to try mine out, and with a homemade fiber lightpipe ring flash setup.

I just saw vignetting when use sigma in the flat port with Aquatica close-up holder. that holder fill lot of area in the front of the flat port.