Canon 180mm or 100mm IS Macro

[usayit]

Buying lenses with the intent of selling them? Then why buy them?

If you have no intent on selling it, who gives a **** what it will be worth a year from now?

My point exactly!

Simply select the best lens for the job...

 

[Overread]

All these posts and not a single mention of the wonderfull sigma 180mm macro - its pretty much just as good as the canon whilst also being lighter.
Juza Nature Photography
Juza Nature Photography

For some reason the tamron 180mm has never been a popular 180mm lens on the market - I think because whilst it offers the image quaity its other features are less than those offered by the sigma and the canon (eg the tamron has no HSM/USM focusing).

One downside is taht sigma have recenty discontinued the 180mm macro; might mean they are releasing a new OS capable macro lens soon or that they are letting the very similar featured (and slightly lighter) 150mm take the long range market alone. Certainly there is little difference between the two and the working distance difference between 180mm and 150mm for macro is going to be very slight.

So I'll put a vote in and say consider the sigma 150mm macro lens as an option.

 

[Neil S.]

But as Derrel pointed out in another thread, 1st party lenses hold their value much better.

Just like car purchases, I never understood this..... These camera lenses (just like vehicles) aren't investment vehicles from which to concern yourself during purchase.

If you are worried about depreciation, then put yourself on the "correct" side of the equation (like I do most of the time). Purchase used after the depreciation has already taken its toll.


Perhaps its just me.... but I like nice stuff but I refuse to pay for it.

The whole argument seems a little absurd to me...

Buying lenses with the intent of selling them? Then why buy them?

If you have no intent on selling it, who gives a **** what it will be worth a year from now?

I wasn't arguing with anyone here, all I did was make a statement about the resale value of lenses.

I also never said that I buy lenses with the intent of selling them. I said that I felt genuine Canon and Nikon lenses hold their value better, thats it.

Just because you are not planning on selling something when buying it, does not mean that you will not need to in the future.

If you don't agree with me, or think this is something important then thats fine. You just like me have the right to your opinion.

I see no need to call what I said "absurd"

How well things hold their value in general is important to me, which is why I mentioned it.

Thanks for your advice before, but it seems to me that you are the one trying to argue with me, not the other way around.

 

[Neil S.]

All these posts and not a single mention of the wonderfull sigma 180mm macro - its pretty much just as good as the canon whilst also being lighter.
Juza Nature Photography
Juza Nature Photography

For some reason the tamron 180mm has never been a popular 180mm lens on the market - I think because whilst it offers the image quaity its other features are less than those offered by the sigma and the canon (eg the tamron has no HSM/USM focusing).

One downside is taht sigma have recenty discontinued the 180mm macro; might mean they are releasing a new OS capable macro lens soon or that they are letting the very similar featured (and slightly lighter) 150mm take the long range market alone. Certainly there is little difference between the two and the working distance difference between 180mm and 150mm for macro is going to be very slight.

So I'll put a vote in and say consider the sigma 150mm macro lens as an option.

You are right that the Sigma 180mm macro is another good option, and is an outstanding value.

I read the review of it that you posted in another thread by the way.

It will probably be a few months before I would buy a new macro lens anyways, so during that time I will do more research and carefully consider all my options.

Thanks for the input. :thumbup: