sigma 150 for my money, seems to always rate very highly, and a lot cheaper than canon/nikon. Sharp and clear, if I was more into macro that is what I would get.
As it is, I'm all heath robinson, with revering rings and extension tubes lol...
Was having a look at the sigma though my head keeps telling me to go canon. I guy on here has just shown some shots with the sigma and they do look pretty good.
Is the IS version of the canon 100mm macro worth the extra money over the older non IS
I used to have the Sigma 150 before moving to m43. Loved it to bits, the extra working distance comes in useful over and over again (and it works well with the 1.4tc for even more!).
However, an MP-E65 would be extremely difficult to pass up if I shot Canon. Depends whether super-macro capabilities are important to you, I guess.
The 100 L was the first L lens I bought (along with a 100-400 L at the same time) and it's still the only lens I'd go for to shoot macro. I got an MP-E65 at one point and even took the time to design and build a flash kit for it (similar to the £500+ mt24ex flash) that cost around £100 and it worked really well. However, after an accident I eventually found it too hard to use handheld so I sold it on. I managed to get some great photos from it but nowhere near as many as the 100 L.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.