One last lens choice

[Paradox]

My macro lens for the 40D. I've narrowed it down to two choices; and I have no idea which to go for. They are the Canon 100mm f/2.8, and the Sigma 150mm f/2.8. Both seem from reviews to be excellent lenses, and they're both about the same price.

So, which to go for? Macro photography will range from droplets to plants to insects, so I'm thinking the reach would be nice. Handholding at that kind of range will be hard, but for macro that's next to impossible anyway surely due to the small depth of field? Decisions decisions...again! I thought I was past these.

[downtrodden]

Hey, cannot answer your question, just givin' you a headsup that I added you on DA.

[Paradox]

So you did - Added you back.

[AdamW]

I have the Canon and just love it. I've heard very good things about the Sigma. I think it comes down to this: the Sigma gives you more reach, the Canon will be easier to handle.

[Paradox]

Sorry for the slow reply - Life getting on top of me again. Thanks for the opinion. :)

[nqjudo]

If it is any help, I've used both lenses among others. For my purposes I find the 100 2.8 far less cumbersome to use and it lends itself better to handheld shots. The becomes even more true if you are adding a ring flash unit on the end.

I've done a few interesting things with the 100 including extension tubes and you can also use it with the 1.4x tele extender with the addition of a 12mm extension tube, making the lens a 140 f/4. I haven't tried the 2x. Well, hope that helps a little.

[Rooz]

I have the Canon and just love it. I've heard very good things about the Sigma. I think it comes down to this: the Sigma gives you more reach, the Canon will be easier to handle.

in a nut shell, this is exactly what it comes down to.

i chose the sigma over the 105 nikkor purely based on reach but at the comprimise of a heavier, less comfortable lens to handhold. mind you, alot of macro stuff is tripod work anyway, especially if you want it to have a small aperture.

with insects, 100mm is just not enough so if thats high on your list of "want to shoots", then imo, 100mm will frustrate the crap out of you in the medium to long term. to put this in perspective, i now find 150mm too limiting sometimes.

btw: i gave pretty much the same advice to corey in a thread where he asked the same question...but as per usual, he ignosed me cos i'm not a big "C" like you guys. :p

[JTL]

i'm not a big "C" like you guys. :pWell you certainly use to act like a big "C" sometimes! :p:eek::p

Just kidding, you old dag...I just couldn't resist...:D:D:D

[downtrodden]

I did not ignore you Rooz!!!

[Paradox]

Thanks for all the advice guys - Shame everyone's going in different directions! :p

[Rooz]

I did not ignore you Rooz!!!

you bloody well did you big C. :p:D

paradox, i think everyones actually saying exactly the same thing. extra reach vs easier handling. only you can decide which is more important to you.

[Paradox]

True, true. I'll probably go for the reach if that's the main difference. Don't suppose there'll be any noticable drop in image quality?