180mm Macro Lenses - Canon vs. Sigma

[GMCPhotographics]

I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16.
The Canon is an old lens. But it's optimised for stopping down when focusing close. It's AF isn't ideal for general shooting. The Sigma sort of wants to be a jack of all trades and it want's to kid you that it's good for action, portraiture and serious macro work. When covering so many basses, there has to be design compromises. So I see this lens and an oddity and an overly large and heavy one too. Your millage might vary.

 

[Jopa]

I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16.
The Canon is an old lens. But it's optimised for stopping down when focusing close. It's AF isn't ideal for general shooting. The Sigma sort of wants to be a jack of all trades and it want's to kid you that it's good for action, portraiture and serious macro work. When covering so many basses, there has to be design compromises. So I see this lens and an oddity and an overly large and heavy one too. Your millage might vary.

The only downside so far is the filter size - there is no ring flash available for a 86mm macro. I was shooting with a regular flash in the past. Size and weight are ok to hold for a couple of hours.

 

[aceflibble]

This thread is now months old and I wouldn't usually respond to such things, but as it's been resurrected by someone else and one of these posts has unfortunate implications which other users might read when searching for information on these lenses, I think this one point does need addressing:

I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens.

(Rest cut for space.)

f/2.8 is useful because it allows the camera's AF points to operate at full sensitivity and accuracy, while slower lenses can cause problems for many bodies. It also keeps the viewfinder as bright as possible. Of course it can also be useful for anyone who uses the lens for purposes other than macro; the 100mm f/2.8 IS is very popular for portraits, as is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro.

 

[danski0224]

I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16.
The Canon is an old lens. But it's optimised for stopping down when focusing close. It's AF isn't ideal for general shooting. The Sigma sort of wants to be a jack of all trades and it want's to kid you that it's good for action, portraiture and serious macro work. When covering so many basses, there has to be design compromises. So I see this lens and an oddity and an overly large and heavy one too. Your millage might vary.

The Sigma has OS and the Canon does not.

The Sigma will give you more and better AF points than the Canon.

The Sigma is quite sharp at non-macro distances, and f/2.8.

It would be nice if Sigma would update this lens to the latest Global Vision series.

Because the Sigma is not a Canon lens, one may encounter some AF issues on Canon bodies.

 

[Jopa]

A few days ago I tried to purchase the Sigma 180 APO from Sigma's web site but they said my transaction didn't pass their fraud check. Apparently I stole my own card. I didn't argue, just got the 100L instead. Love it. First time in my life I see a working AF on a macro lens @ macro distances.

 

[YuengLinger]

I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16.
The Canon is an old lens. But it's optimised for stopping down when focusing close. It's AF isn't ideal for general shooting. The Sigma sort of wants to be a jack of all trades and it want's to kid you that it's good for action, portraiture and serious macro work. When covering so many basses, there has to be design compromises. So I see this lens and an oddity and an overly large and heavy one too. Your millage might vary.

The Sigma has OS and the Canon does not.

The Sigma will give you more and better AF points than the Canon.

The Sigma is quite sharp at non-macro distances, and f/2.8.

It would be nice if Sigma would update this lens to the latest Global Vision series.

Because the Sigma is not a Canon lens, one may encounter some AF issues on Canon bodies.

Firstly, on my 5D III and IV, AF is quick and accurate.

Regarding updating this...No! For some reason I've had bad luck with ART series AF on the same two bodies, and I can't imagine the creamy bokeh and sharpness being significantly improved. This is an amazing lens for garden macro, and does the trick for smooth, very pleasant close-up portraits. If it ain't broke, please don't fix it!