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 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.
Upvote
0