Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro

Used to own one and loved it, superb lens thats as good for portraits as it was for the tiny stuff. AF was quick and quiet and my copy was pin sharp at 2.8.
Just don't them in lakes when trying to photograph damsel flies.....:(
 
Columbo said:
Used to own one and loved it, superb lens thats as good for portraits as it was for the tiny stuff. AF was quick and quiet and my copy was pin sharp at 2.8.
Just don't them in lakes when trying to photograph damsel flies.....:(
Click to expand...

Good to hear, it does seem to be a very well reviewed lens but I thought it would be nice to get the opinions of ocuk'ers too. I could get the lens for £330 brand new and white, or pay £170 more for the Canon 2.8L 100mm IS at £500, albeit a "pale grey" import... it's a bit of a hard choice but I can't really find anything to justify going against the Sigma...
 
You shouldn't forget the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

It is around £370 at the moment. Sure it doesn't have IS like the L version but optically it is difficult to tell the difference between those two lenses.

Whilst IS is nice, it isn't essential. A reasonable tripod or off camera flash will sort out the shakes or freeze movement and at any rate when you're close focussing the depth of field is so fine that even with IS you might not focus on the correct spot. Manual focus is often the way to go.

One photographer whom I regularly bump into on my travels uses the Canon MP-E 65 f/2.8 hand held (albeit with flash) and gets some amazing shots and the depth of field when that thing is close focussed is paper thin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom