70-200mm F4L vs Sigma 180mm Macro

[kiwi2]

What about the AF? I heard its the main complaint about the lens.

The 70-200mm f/4L is not a macro lens as some pointed out. If you want to do serious macro shots, this is not the lens to go for, even with extension tubes. Maybe for very occasional shoots but not frequent and serious ones.

As for AF, you can't beat the Canon 100mm USM macro. However there are pros and cons to consider. For serious macro photographers, most of the time, if not always, they will use manual focus so no matter how slow and crappy AF is, they really wouldn't mind. But USM to me is sort of a 'habit' or philosophy if you like. If you do other forms of photography with your lens, then fast and silent AF like Canon's USM can be a boon. So when Canon came up with the USM to replace the older non-USM macro lens, it was a valuable gift to the photographer who dabbles both in macro and general photography.

But given that the Sigma 180mm macro is not much different in price from Canon's 100mm macro, there seems to be a stronger inclination to choose the former. It's bigger and heavier though. The much more expensive Canon 180mm f/3.5L seems best placed in Canon's warehouse.

Both 100mm and 180mm lenses give 1:1 magnification. The only difference is that the 180mm gives you a greater working distance. Great when you're taking small insects which will move away when you get too close. But if you're working with flowers or other stationary stuffs, then I should think the 100mm is ideal enough.

See what you want to shoot! Good luck..

 

[Jeff]

Hi all,
just want to seek some opinions regarding the 2 lens cos I'm undecided between the 2.

Considering the price difference is not that much : 180mm @ $900 (Kenghor's MO) and 70-200mm @ $1050 used, what other factors should I consider?

I'm starting to shoot butterflies and been enjoying it, but was using a 50-500mm, which is way too heavy especially when I have to trek. Was thinking a macro lens would be better suited. But, at the same time, a zoom lens would be more versatile. With the zoom lens, I can bring it along when I travel (lugging the 50-500mm, with other things in tow, through airport is a killer). The Sigma 180mm is heavier (960g) compared to the 70-200mm (720g).

Does the 70-200 F4L give a 1:1 magnification?
How does both lens compare at 180mm?
I assume the sigma 180mm would give a better bokeh?

Thanks for any comments!

Be greedy. Get Both. :devil: There is no parallel for a dedicated macro lens. :thumbsup: The other 70/200/F4 is good for travelling and taking candid shots. Have both and ur problems will be solved.