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.
1927314
I use two lenses for most of my work although I do have a number of other lenses for special tasks such as macro. for most of my landscapes I use a Sigma 18-250 macro lens. It's very versatile and give me photos with little chromatic aberrations. It's fairly fast at F3.5 and the nice thing is I can keep it on the camera 75% of the time. The other lens I use a lot it the Sigma 150-500 Auto focus. It's great for shooting wild life shot such as song birds near a bird feeder or a bear you don't want to get too close to. I have other lenses I use also but nearly as often as I use these two. Don
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
716212
Philip,I am sorry that I cannot offer much insight to this question. I use a D700 model Nikon and the Sigma 70mm macro lens has worked flawlessly so far with this camera. I have no experiencewhatsoever with the D7100, however. Best of luck to you,Denis Thompson
1927313
I don't have a lot of experience using this in videos but I got very good results from the Canon 50mm f1.8 and Canon 70-200mm f4. Down load the Magic Lantern for this camera and research how to put an audio monitor. This will be a good set-up with an addition of an external mic. I don't have a lot of macro lens but I find the Canon 100mm f2.8 (the non IS and not "L") a very good lens. Hope this helps!
1249481
Yeah, Diverhank nailed it - two very different lenses. Important to note that the 50mm 1.4 is NOT a macro lens and that was something you mentioned in your initial post. I used the 50mm on my T2i and absolutely loved it, though I eventually upgraded (and much preferred) the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for the "normal" focal length on the crop-sensor. I now shoot a full frame and primarily use the 50mm but will likely get the 100mm shortly. Be sure to take a look at the Sigma 30mm before buying the 50mm Canon but if Macro is what you're looking for, you can't go wrong with the 100mm L.
1914228
Yes - but manual focus only. You can only Macro at 35mm with the f/2.8 With the f/3.5 you can Macro at 70mm.Google Ken Rockwell Nikon 35-70 f/3.5 and read the articles - also on the f/2.8.These lenses are a steal. Don't be put off by the manual focusing.
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.
1183538
The canon has 1.2 vice 1.4 and slightly less chromatic aberration (purple color fringing) when wide open. The sigma is much faster to focus and just as sharp. It's not so much a "quality" as paying a premium for the canon L red ring and the extra glass needed to achieve 1.2.
552635
Good bang for the buck is just get a zoom lens that has macro feature on it. Like the Tamron AF 70-300 mm. Look it up on Amazon.
2024381
I don't have both for a one on one comparison of the image quality, but the 35mm f2.8 macro generally has slightly better ratings. Check out the reviews on the Pentax Forums web site. The main reason I purchased it was for the macro capability. It also has metal vs plastic housing which may or may not be an issue depending on how you use it.
357729
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.
1927315
I use a Canon 70-200mm F4 zoom and a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 with macro focusing. I have found that this combination of lenses has served me well since the late 70's, shooting concerts, landscapes and wildlife. For extreme macro get a lens reversing ring for the wide angle and you can shoot snowflakes.
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
543324
My copy of the Sigma was horrendous. I had to send it back. Ended up buying the 35mm version of the Sigma (the new Artisan series) and that one's MUCH sharper than the equivalent Canon 1.4.
1352096
I have the Rebel XTI and I've taken some great close up pictures with the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. I also have the 70-200mm f/4, 17-55mm f2.8, 85mm f1.8 and the 17-40 f/4, but my favorite is the 100mm macro with the 70-200mm f/4 a very close second.
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?