New Tamron 180mm or 2nd hand Canon 180mm

[Hein]

Hi Guys,

Any idwa which would be a better solution to replace my Tamron 90mm macro:

1. Tamron 180mm new $1100??
2. Canon 180mm 2nd hand $1800??

Thanks

[ExplorerZ]

Not very sure, but I believed the only significant advantage the Canon have over the Tamron is USM...

[Denosha]

Why not consider the Sigma 180mm? It has better build than the Tamron and has HSM, which is almost as fast as Canon's USM. Optically it's pretty damn good too. As for peeling, I've had mine for more than a year already and still no problems with this particular model so far. Check out my gallery, most of the newer macros are taken with the Sigma 180 macro with and without a 1.4x TC (can tell from the exif/photo properties).

[Hein]

Originally Posted by Denosha Why not consider the Sigma 180mm? It has better build than the Tamron and has HSM, which is almost as fast as Canon's USM. Optically it's pretty damn good too. As for peeling, I've had mine for more than a year already and still no problems with this particular model so far. Check out my gallery, most of the newer macros are taken with the Sigma 180 macro with and without a 1.4x TC (can tell from the exif/photo properties).

Hey there... Seems like you are using a ring flash too... Hmmm... maybe that was a huge contribution to the great pics besides the lens(of course, the photographer too )

So far, seems like it's not a good deal to get the Canon at $1800???? The sigma may be a better deal @ around $1300???

[Clown]

tried both sigma and tamron and i'd say tamron is better optically wise. i'm on MF 95% of the time cuz the AF is too slow. whereas on the sigma, tho fast, it tends to hunt.

[Denosha]

Originally Posted by Hein Hey there... Seems like you are using a ring flash too... Hmmm... maybe that was a huge contribution to the great pics besides the lens(of course, the photographer too ) So far, seems like it's not a good deal to get the Canon at $1800???? The sigma may be a better deal @ around $1300???

Not the ring flash actually, the twin lite (the one with the 2 moveable heads). Ring flashes are actually bad for longer macro lenses because most of the light will end up reaching the subject on a parallel axis and the result will be very flat looking lighting.

I don't think the Canon is worth it, even 2nd hand at $1800 (can you find it that cheap?). It also doesn't help that it's really overpriced over here as compared to places like B&H. Even my macro flash was almost S$400 cheaper by getting it from B&H instead of from here in SG.

As for what Clown said about the AF, he is right about the hunting. But I'm on MF for macros anyway so it doesn't really matter. I don't use really use the lens for non-macro stuff tho.

[Ljung]

I will go for the Canon 180mm.

[Hein]

Originally Posted by Denosha Not the ring flash actually, the twin lite (the one with the 2 moveable heads). Ring flashes are actually bad for longer macro lenses because most of the light will end up reaching the subject on a parallel axis and the result will be very flat looking lighting. I don't think the Canon is worth it, even 2nd hand at $1800 (can you find it that cheap?). It also doesn't help that it's really overpriced over here as compared to places like B&H. Even my macro flash was almost S$400 cheaper by getting it from B&H instead of from here in SG. As for what Clown said about the AF, he is right about the hunting. But I'm on MF for macros anyway so it doesn't really matter. I don't use really use the lens for non-macro stuff tho.

Hi Denosha,

I actually am able to get a second hand for $1800, but dunno whether it's worth to get this at $1800, or move to the Tamron/Sigma for lesser, and get a brand new one...

[Garion]

I'll pick Tamron over the Canon. Optically superb, and slightly lighter as well. Better value for money since its priced much lower. One of the best macro lenses I've ever used in terms of optical performance. Check out the works of sumball in Macro forums, he uses this lens.

[megaweb]

Of course Canon is better if you do not mind to pay more.

Canon 180mm can use teleconverter.

[dRebelXT]

I was told Tamron's sharpness and color saturation is much better than Sigma.
While I was browsing Pbase comparing these two lens side by side, it seems so to me.

I guess I will get Tamron in next few weeks.

[Snoweagle]

I'll pick the originals over 3rd-party ones anytime.

[Denosha]

Originally Posted by dRebelXT I was told Tamron's sharpness and color saturation is much better than Sigma. While I was browsing Pbase comparing these two lens side by side, it seems so to me. I guess I will get Tamron in next few weeks.

Hmm.. that was not the impression I got when I was shopping for a 180mm macro. What i read seems to say the Tamron and Sigma are about the same or the Tamron is slightly better. But to say it is much better i think is pushing it. But I'd say it's rather hard to make such judgements without side-by-side tests shooting the same stuff at the same time by the same person with the same methods. There are just too many variables.

Originally Posted by Snoweagle I'll pick the originals over 3rd-party ones anytime.

I'd normally go for originals even if they cost 3x more than the 3rd-party equivalents (just look at my profile) but in this case, I'd say the 3rd-party options are really pretty close. So much so that the advantages of the L over the competition just isn't compelling enough. But that's based on the local pricing. $1800 is a pretty good price if you're comparing it to local prices. However, if you look at B&H, you'd realise that $1800 is only slightly under the price of a brand new set (without the shipping).

Anyway, I think you can't really go wrong with any of the 3 lenses since i think they are all great in their own right and will definitely do the job.

[Garion]

Originally Posted by Denosha Hmm.. that was not the impression I got when I was shopping for a 180mm macro. What i read seems to say the Tamron and Sigma are about the same or the Tamron is slightly better. But to say it is much better i think is pushing it. But I'd say it's rather hard to make such judgements without side-by-side tests shooting the same stuff at the same time by the same person with the same methods. There are just too many variables.

Agree on the last part, its hard to compare both lenses subjectively, both are very good, but I feel the Tamron gives slightly better (more contrasty?) colours and sharpness over the Sigma. I've used them both before. The Tamron 180mm is one of the amazing hidden gems in the market, provided you land a good copy.

Quote: I'd normally go for originals even if they cost 3x more than the 3rd-party equivalents (just look at my profile) but in this case, I'd say the 3rd-party options are really pretty close. So much so that the advantages of the L over the competition just isn't compelling enough. But that's based on the local pricing. $1800 is a pretty good price if you're comparing it to local prices. However, if you look at B&H, you'd realise that $1800 is only slightly under the price of a brand new set (without the shipping).

Surely if you had the moolah, the original lens option is also an excellent choice, but I feel unless you are really nit picking about build quality, both Tamron and Sigma offerings are worthy ones too. Many serious nature macro shooters use either one.

Quote: Anyway, I think you can't really go wrong with any of the 3 lenses since i think they are all great in their own right and will definitely do the job.

Can't argue with that!

[Clown]

yep.. for macro lenses, i'll go for tamron over any other brand.
i have a tamron 180 for my nikon systems and now gonna get another tamron 180 for my canon system. =)

here's an old reference. some pics may not be working but the texts says it all.
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

[ExplorerZ]

another lens to consider is the Sigma 150mm macro HSM... tried a little during IT show, focusing was pretty fast for normal operation... nv tried on real macro.
as for working distance at 1:1, from what i got from Nikonian source

Sigma 150 f2.8 - 197mm
Sigma 180 f3.5 - 232mm
Tamron 180 f3.5 - 258mm

imho if you can live with the pathetic working distance of sigma 150 (compared to tamron 180), it will be a pretty good buy for its HSM, f2.8 and of cos a lower price tag, optically is also very good (probably as good as the nikon 105 )

[dRebelXT]

Originally Posted by Clown yep.. for macro lenses, i'll go for tamron over any other brand. i have a tamron 180 for my nikon systems and now gonna get another tamron 180 for my canon system. =) here's an old reference. some pics may not be working but the texts says it all. http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

maybe can do a MO for this lens. Two interested buyers now.
You, me and maybe Hein.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by Denosha I'd normally go for originals even if they cost 3x more than the 3rd-party equivalents (just look at my profile) but in this case, I'd say the 3rd-party options are really pretty close. So much so that the advantages of the L over the competition just isn't compelling enough. But that's based on the local pricing. $1800 is a pretty good price if you're comparing it to local prices. However, if you look at B&H, you'd realise that $1800 is only slightly under the price of a brand new set (without the shipping). Anyway, I think you can't really go wrong with any of the 3 lenses since i think they are all great in their own right and will definitely do the job.

I used to own a Tamron lens. Though gd but i found it's not as gd as the originals.

[Hein]

Originally Posted by dRebelXT maybe can do a MO for this lens. Two interested buyers now. You, me and maybe Hein.

[reneson]

"MO" can count me in too...
hmmmm...sigma 150mm at f2.8
very temping...