Choosing a macro lens

[clarnibass]

I'm trying to decide between a couple of macro lenses. These are local prices (usually significantly more expensive here than USA).

Mainly:
Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro - $570
Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro - $740

Possibly:
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro - $420
Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro - $660
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro - $560

I compared a lot on The-Digital-picture at same apertures etc. and (with the exception of the Sigma 70mm which they don't have) the Canon 100mm and Sigma 105mm looked better. I would pay more for higher quality photos. The difference in price between those two lenses is not huge and I think I trust Canon's products in general but have seen a couple of issues with Sigma.

What I intend to use it for, pretty much in order of importance:
- Closeups/macros of small woodwind instrument parts like screws, keys, etc. (e.g. http://www.nitailevi.com/reviews/tenor_sax/selmer/selmer_ref36_ten_pivot_spring.jpg). A shorter focus is just as good as a longer one for this.
- Probably want to use it as an alternative to a zoom lens sometimes, mostly for taking photos in some of my or others' concerts, because of its high quality non-zoom lens and relatively big aperture, or just some other things (some in relatively low light). Question here is, considering shooting will be from about 1-5 meters away, possibly the shorter focus could be better? For this, the quieter focus (USM or HSM) could behelpful (quiet parts in concerts, etc.) so the Sigmas have a disadvantage here also.
- Last is that, using my kit (18-55mm IS) lens, I'm starting to like macro photos of all sorts of small things I see.

So... at least from comparisons I've seen, the Canon 100mm and Sigma 105mm have the best quality. I probably don't need this long focus for most of what I want. However it would help with some things that I'm getting more interested in lately. It might be a disadvantage (too long?) in some of the non-macro things I want it for? Because there's no IS and I won't use a tripod most of the time, should I even consider the non-macro part as a reason to get one of these lenses? I would use a tripod for my home mechanical photos most of he time. Another very small issue is the the bigger lenses are a bit borderline to fit my small camera bag, which I prefer not to need a bigger bag.

The last questio nis, since prices are significantly higher here, is it too risky to buy one of these from USA where returning would be impossible or at least expensive? For example I've read too many QC issues with Sigmas and trying several or returning a problematic one wouldn't really be possible if I order.

Thanks

Nitai

 

[Markw]

Well, it seems like you've laid it all out and know what you have to decide. The lenses shown should give you the exact same picture quality practically at macro focusing distances. You really just need to know what you want out of the lens. If you want a wide prime as well as a macro lens, maybe the Tokina 35mm Macro is for you? It's basically useless as far as bugs go, it would probably scare them away, but it would work fine for the woodwind parts and wider portraits. I would get a macro lens for macro and a wide lens for wide shots, the two almost never mix. Macro lenses can be used as mid-long telephotos, not wide shots most of the time.

Have you ever thought of just adding a few extension tubes to your 18-55 or reversing a 50mm prime on the end of it (at 50mm, you will get 1:1 magnification)? This would do the same thing for you, save for the F/2.8 aperture.

Mark

 

[jaharris1001]

of the lens' you listed, I would highly recommend either the Canon 100mm macro OR the Sigma 105mm macro, both have exceptional optics and I prefer the 100mm working distance on these lens',, If the price difference is only $10.00 between the Canon and the Sigma I would Opt for the Canon, however I think you can find the Sigma for cheaper then you have listed, I did a google and found that the Sigma 105 starts listing at $ 479.00 which is a savings of $ 100.00 over the Canon and in that case I would Opt for the Sigma 105,, optically the Sigma is a great lens, I have one and love it,, I do believe the Canon probably focus' better when on Auto focus and the Canon does not extend when focusing where as the Sigma does,, but again for me and my personal experience the extending doesn not bother me what so ever and when I shoot macro I manually focus 100 % of the time anyways,, either way, Canon/Sigma you cant go wrong,, I also am unaware of any QC issues with Sigma lens,, at least any more so then any other major manufacture,, good luck