Canon 50mm Macro vs Sigma 50mm EX DG

Canon 50mm Macro vs Sigma 50mm EX DG.

Hello need help, i have a canon 300D and i will buy a ikelite housing and one ikelite ds 50 but i don´t know what macro lens to buy.

Marco

First, I'd buy the 125, not the 50. From all I've heard, the 50 just isn't bright enough.

I have the Canon- It's a good fish portrait lens, not a great macro lens. If you really want macro, think about the 100. The Sigma will do 1:1, Canon 1:1.4 or so

Chris

The Sigma can do 1:1 but I would still take the Canon any day. I say choose Canon over Sigma, simply because there isn't much sence in buying the high quality body and being cheap about the lens. The glass is what ultimately decides the quality of your gear.

Is this going to be your only macro lens? And are you planning to shoot little small critters such as gobies, blennies etc? If so, I recommend giving the Canon 100 mm a thought instead. The 50 mm works better for critters that are a bit bigger, think small turtles, angel fish, octopus...

The Canon 50mm macro focuses to 1:2. To shoot 1:1 you will need to add the "lifesize converter". There are two considerations with this. For one, you have very little working distance. You really get to know your critters up close and personal, and have to fear squishing those little gobies between the coral and your port... The other consideration is that once you have attached the LSC, you can no longer focus on infinity.

Since the working distance and DOF are so small with the above mentioned combo, it is just as easy to shoot with the 100mm + you get more working distance. The price for the 100mm vs the 50mm+LSC is about the same.

The Sigma lens is not cheap. It's a fine macro lens and will not compromise the performance of your system. It is, BTW, slightly more expensive than the Canon (at B&H) and many prefer it anyway.

I'm with Craig on this one. The Sigma 50mm macro is a fine performing lens, and the Canon only focuses as near as 1:2.5 actually. Less than half lifesize without the teleconverter. It is very easy to slip inside the minimum focus as you are working a fish, and then there is no possibility it will focus at all. The Canon 50mm macro is a poor choice, but having said that, all my other lenses are Canon. The 100mm macro USM is brilliant.

I do agree as well.

choosing the original brand is no guarantee getting the better lens. It's an old rule and does not apply in general for all lenses anymore today.

In terms of optical quality the Sigma Macros (50 & 105) outperform the originals. The 50mm gives you true 1:1 (35mm equiv.). The Sigma 50mm costs more, so it's not a "cheap third party compromise".

Nice about the Canon 100mm is the full time manual focus if one wants to have it.

I've posted this in another thread:

a german photomag does lens tests in combination with DSLRs for half a year now. Normally I don't trust those magazines. But they seem to have done extensive research and provide the results for a certain lens in conjunction with exactly just one camera. Even Nikon D70 and D100 are seperate.

The Sigma 50mm and 105mm Macros were better over the Canon originals. The old lineup (non DG Series) were better as well and almost the same as the new DG ones.

The Sigma 50mm was brilliant already wide open. The Canon started to come alive stopped down one unit.

I think you can buy the Sigma Macros without any doubt.

Julian

Julian - Try the AF search speed on the Sigma compared to the Canon 100 macro USM and I think you'd opt for the Canon. Much faster and more accurate, at least according to my side-by-side tests with the EOS1DMKII. I have no doubt the Sigma is sharp, but ability to pick out a subject in AF is certainly part of the equation, and with the 100mm macros, Canon is much better than Sigma. Add to that the ability to manual focus via the USM functionality, the Canon trumps Sigma.

From strictly a optical standpoint you should try this URL. It covers tests of all the canon, Sigma, and Tamron lenses plus comments and ratings.It is quite well thought out and comprehensive.

Llens test:

http://iapf.physik.tu-berlin.de/jbohs/HKO/.../Macro100E.html

Stephen, thank you for the info. Nice to know that the "slow searching" with the 105mm is an item. In spite of little optical differences (in general all the macros do very well on DLSRs) I considered the Canon 100mm for it's USM which I like with my other lenses. I was not sure how big the difference in terms of AF is. Does it sometimes help to point the AF into the correct range manually and let the AF do the finetuning?

thanks,

Julian

thanks for all the info, i probably buy the sigma 50mm

I'm curious about the Sigma 150mm f2.8 Macro that was announced at Photokina. I have been keen to get a longer focal length macro lens since I started experimenting with telephoto shots earlier in the year.

All I know is what I have read from the press release on DP Review.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092204...igma3lenses.asp

Anyone had a play with this lens?

Alex

Not available yet, Alex. I have one on order though.

To me, it's basically a 100mm lens for full frame cameras (sad to think that way). I like the possibility of using it with a 1.4 converter with full frame and still have f/4 for focusing. Otherwise high magnifications are hard to get with FF. Hopefully the quality will be there. For cropped sensors I think it would be preferrable to the 180/200 lengths and less expensive.

Hi,

I saw some posts speaking about the concerns to take picts with Canon 100mm or Sigma 105mm due the lenses size and weight combined with the minimal focus distance. I never used these macros lenses underwater, but is it true ?

I asked about it because I am moving to digital with my new EOS20D and I will move to the new housing and will need to buy new ports.

Regards

Fabio

----------------------------------------------

Canon EOS ELan7 + Ikelite + Canon EF20mm + EF50mm Macro + others

Canon EOS 20D + Waiting for aluminum housing

I have both and use both topside, but underwater I mostly use the Sigma unless I know I won't be doing macro. As for Stephen's comments about the 100 mm macro, I agree but in focusing tests done in relatively controlled conditions with either of 2 10D bodies, the Sigma and Canon 50 mm macro lenses both focus at about the same rates even in difficult conditions (low contrast, poorly lit subjects). I have had relatively little problem with focusing UW in most conditions with the Sigma

Yes, the Canon 50mm doesn't feature USM as the Canon 100mm.

So the AF differences only apply to the 100 vs 105.

Julian

I'm with Craig on this one. The Sigma 50mm macro is a fine performing lens, and the Canon only focuses as near as 1:2.5 actually.  Less than half lifesize without the teleconverter.  It is very easy to slip inside the minimum focus as you are working a fish, and then there is no possibility it will focus at all.  The Canon 50mm macro is a poor choice, but having said that, all my other lenses are Canon.  The 100mm macro USM is brilliant.

I echo these comments also. I have the Sigma 50mm and the Canon 100mm. The 100mm worked like a charm in British Columbia where I thought it would be really tested due to the low light conditions at depth. Never a problem with AF even though I was set-up to use the FTMF should it prove to be needed.