100m f/2.8L or no L?

[Tannin]

Interesting posts, BM. The Sigma 150 macro was the one I was all set to buy until the 100L IS came out and wrecked my plans!

As always, The Digital Picture review is instructive:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Revie...ns-Review.aspx

Note that the Canon lens that Bryan compares the Sigma with is the old non-IS non-L 100mm macro, not the new one.

[Bennymiata]

That comparison is from the older Sigma macro without OS and the new splash proof coatings.

They complain that the old one is not so fast at focussing, but I find my new one very quick and almost as quick as my L lenses, especially in decent light.
The focussing is also very quiet.

[Art Vandelay]

Good info in here, thanks to all. - Even tough I didn't ask the questions.

Interesting info on the 150 Sigma too Benny, particularly the extra length & the use of a regular flash, something I hadn't considered.

[dulvariprestige]

I wish they'd have improved the focus speed on their new 70-200 OS, I actually think they went a little backwards, but the IQ has definitely improved.

[Tannin]

Interesting info on the 150 Sigma too Benny, particularly the extra length & the use of a regular flash

I quite often use a standard 580EX II with a macro lens, Art. I have a Canon Macro Twin-light but it doesn't fit on my 100mm Canon L macro because I haven't bought the adaptor ring for it yet. So there is one reason. A second reason is that I sometimes set up with a two or three different macro lenses on different bodies when I'm doing product photography (cause you want to take all your views of a particular item, then pack it away and move on to the next one). And a third is that if we are doing flora and Belinda has grabbed first dibs on the 60 macro & twin flash, then I get whatever is left over.

Obviously, it works just fine, especially for fill flash. For shots which are mostly flash (rather than just a bit of fill), the dual head flash is, of course, superior.

[Pine]

[QUOTE=[I]Bennymiata;888093]I don't do many portraits as most of my family and friends are camera shy but I think this Sigma lens would do a sterling job of them as the colours and contrast are excellent.
The bokeh is to die for! So creamy smooth.

Here's a shot I took with it of a nice flower bud, which is posted up in the flower section.
It is completely untouched as far as PP is concerned, and is just straight out of the camera and reduced in size for the forum.
The second shot is a 100% crop of the first shot, again, untouched by any PP othe rthan cropping.

One thing i really like about this lens, is that because you have a bit more distance between you and the subject, you can just use a normal flash with it, instead of having to spend lots of $$$ on a ring or macro flash.
Mind you, I do have a ring flash, whcih I use on my 60mm Macro, but for this lens, any flash mounted on the top of the camera will work well.

The lens is a bit bigger and heavier than the Canon 100 Macro (either of them), but it's not too big or heavy to use, even with a 580EXII on the top of it, and the lens comes with a tripod mount and lens hood as well.[/I]

Hi Bennimiato
Without being critical these shots are no better than the Canon 100 mm

I prefer the Canon which is lighter than the Sigma and probably sharper

Its all a matter of choice.
(See attached Lions)


Regards

[Pine]

Hi Fedgrub
Its all a matter of cost

If you can afford it buy the L but do you need it?

I looked at the cost difference between the the L and none L and took a chance
and have not been sorry.

The 100 mm is a great lens that is light and very sharp.

It use to be my favourite Kruger Park lens for photographing animals
until I replaced it with the 70-200L which has a longer reach and zoom.

Also used it for macro shots which is really a science of its own
The wind moving the flowers whilst photographing them were more of a problem
than having IS or not.

I sometimes think that IS is simply another gadget that we do not need.

Neither my 20-70 or 100 has IS and they stay great lenses.

Your choice but I would get the none L.

Regards

[Fedgrub]

Thanks, Pine. Guess I will just put funds into the balance and see what happens. All this talk of flashes makes me think I should invest in a speedlite first though...

[Pine]

Hi Fedgrub
Thinking along the same lines just not sure what flash to get

Regards

[Fedgrub]

Hi Fedgrub
Thinking along the same lines just not sure what flash to get

Regards

I'm actually just about to start a flash unit thread! Keep an eye out

[Cage]

After market Tripod Rings. http://stores.ebay.com.au/Phoebe-G/T...=p4634.c0.m322

I've used this seller several times and the gear has always been quite good.

[Pine]

I'm actually just about to start a flash unit thread! Keep an eye out

Will do

Thanks

[Bennymiata]

Tripod rings are good, but if you have a grip on your camera, they are useless as the legs on them are too short (in most cases) and the whole lot won't mount on the tripod (in my case using a Manfrotto head) because the grip gets in the way.
If using the grip, I always have to mount the camera on the tripod instead of using the ring putting undue strain on the lens mount.

What do you guys with 1D's do regarding using tripod rings?

[flyfisher]

G'Day Fedgrub, I have the 100mm f2.8L IS version and like you will not pay the ridiculous price tag for the Canon collar so I bought the HK version for around $15 and have never had any issues. Strangely enough I have never used the IS when doing macro work as most shots are used with a tripod (this is where the collar comes in handy to rotate the body from portrait to landscape). The 100mmm is such a handy length that I use it as a portrait lens as well (that is where the IS comes into it's own. I have attached a fungi shot with the 100mm, no flash, shot in a rainforest using an A4 sheet of paper as a reflector (my itinerary) - these are are only about 1cm wide on a small stick - mounted on a tripod using the collar an IS off.

[Fedgrub]

Thanks, Flyfisher. Really nice shot, too!

[Tannin]

What do you guys with 1D's do regarding using tripod rings?

It's not an issue. The clearance on the 100-400 is only just enough, but there is heaps on the bigger lenses. All of this is with a Wimberley head though (standard Arca-Swiss mount), it might be different with the Manfrotto ones.

Hmmm .... Now that you remind me of it, I used to use my 100-400 on my old Manfrotto head back before I got the Wimberley. It was fine. I'd remember if there had been problems.

[William W]

I have used both and I own the earlier non IS model. Both are very crisp lenses.

The L version is sharper and this can be noticed to by reasonable eye, at the edges, at F/2.8.

The value (or not) of the hybrid IS really depends upon what you will shoot and in what circumstances: as a general comment, if you are hand held often then the IS will be of value.

The value (or not) of the tripod collar is not limited to judging the weight, or the balance of the lens and in any case, the balance of the lens has a lot to do with what camera is on its bum. The Tripod collar is very useful, for example, to move form Portrait to Landscape Orientation without moving the camera viewpoint.

I do not see the value for me, to sell my non-IS version and to buy the new IS version, however if I were buying a 100mm macro lens now, I would buy the new L IS version as the IS cannot be a bad thing to have around, and a little bit extra sharp is a bonus.

In that $300.00 “extra” you should also reckon the Lens Hood, which I assume is included in the L version, but is not in the other.

I would buy the Tripod Collar, also, mainly for the example reason I outlined, above.


WW

[hdn177]

Great thread, I was about to ask the same question

Have you decided which lens to go?

[Fedgrub]

Definitely going to go with the L, but thinking of the 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105mm f/4L first.

[Tannin]

^ So I take it you're not married yet, Fedgrub.

(But you have been engaged. Thirty-four times, as a matter of detail.)