# 180mm Macro Lenses - Canon vs. Sigma



## DanP (Mar 11, 2017)

I'm looking to buy a 180mm macro lens and would like to hear comments from anyone with experience with both the Canon and Sigma versions regarding relative performance and picture quality. The reviews for the Sigma appear to be generally positive and it is a much newer design, but probably lacks weather sealing (although I don't expect to be trying to do macro photography in the rain). It's also 50% heavier than the Canon, but is the same weight as my Canon 100-400 V2, and I don't have any problem with that weight - will probably be on a tripod most of the time anyway. Not sure if OS is of much use when handheld at MFD. Also not sure F2.8 is an advantage for macro as depth of field is already too narrow at close focus, but I suppose there is an advantage in having more light for focusing. In Canada, the Sigma would cost me about $315 more than the Canon (more if I buy any filters due to the larger filter size). I only intend to use the lens for macro, not as a telephoto prime. I would be using it on a 5D III. The Sigma in Canada is a special order, meaning I can't return it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2017)

Most Macros, if not all are excellent. The newer models like the Canon 100mmL with hybrid IS are easy to handhold. The only reason I can think of for f/2.8 is easier to focus if you have limited light.


----------



## picturefan (Mar 11, 2017)

Hi.
Like Mt. Spokane said, all newer macro lenses are very good. 
Depending on your subjects, I would choose the lens. If you are into insects, small animals etc., 180mm might be better than 100mm, as you don't have to get so close. i enjoy my 180 here. if you're doing a lot of macro work, it might be worth a look, but it is not as handy for a "carrying around lens" like the much smaller and lighter 100mm macro. in macro i don't see much diff between 2.8 and 3.5 in practice. take into consideration that your 100-400 has a very good mfd, one reason for me to buy it. you can combine with a canon close up lens or intermediate rings. for other macro work, a 100mm (canon, sigma, tammy) would do fine.

have fun choosing!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 11, 2017)

I've had copies of both and the Canon is a far far better lens to use in a muddy field (which is where you are going to be using it presumably). On paper they are very similar lenses, 180mm...similar size and weight and the same 1:1 ratio. BUT...the Sigma looses a lot of focal length as it focuses closer and closer. By 1:1 there is a huge difference in the size of the object in the viewfinder. I seriously doubt the Sigma is any thing like 180mm at 1:1. The Canon seems to retain it's image size as it's focused. I found with the Sigma I would focus...then have to move the lens closer....re-focus...etc. The Canon was a lot easier to operate. 
Wide open, both lenses are a little soft. They are designed to be stopped down to quite small apertures. I got slightly sharper results out of the Canon, but not by much. Stopped down to f16 and they both produce sharp results. 
The Sigma lens collar is fine for general use, but it's pushing it's design when using it for macro work. It's not as smooth or stable as the Canon design. The Sigma lens hood is not as nice as the Canon and mine wobbled in strong winds...also not good during a long exposure at f16. The Sigma has the most horribly gritty focus ring, it's very hard to get very fine and accurate focus tweaks to it without disturbing the whole lens. After using the Canon...my Sigma went straight on Ebay. I've had several friends complain about the sigma issues and I can only hope the newer versions of this lens are better (f2.8).
S/H there are quite a few canon 180L macro lenses out there. It's a relative bargain and a far better lens. But both are hopeless if you have a hopeless tripod. It's not a lens for hand holding like a ef 100mm f2.8 LIS macro.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 11, 2017)

It is possible to use a 180mm Macro handheld. With flitting insects, like butterflies, I handhold to quickly get the best aspect and framing. I also manually focus on these shots, getting rough focus with the focus ring and then fine focus using the viewfinder by moving the camera slightly in or out as the insect moves. See some examples here:

http://www.ronbrunsvold.com/galleries.html

Click on the "Butterfly and Flowers" Gallery

All the butterflies and flowers shot with the Canon 180mm Macro. I would estimate about a 50% success (keeper) rate using this technique. Flowers were shot on a tripod. Also notice the nice out-of-focus backgrounds that are possible with the 180 Macro.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 11, 2017)

DanP said:


> I'm looking to buy a 180mm macro lens and would like to hear comments from anyone with experience with both the Canon and Sigma versions regarding relative performance and picture quality. The reviews for the Sigma appear to be generally positive and it is a much newer design, but probably lacks weather sealing (although I don't expect to be trying to do macro photography in the rain). It's also 50% heavier than the Canon, but is the same weight as my Canon 100-400 V2, and I don't have any problem with that weight - will probably be on a tripod most of the time anyway. Not sure if OS is of much use when handheld at MFD. Also not sure F2.8 is an advantage for macro as depth of field is already too narrow at close focus, but I suppose there is an advantage in having more light for focusing. In Canada, the Sigma would cost me about $315 more than the Canon (more if I buy any filters due to the larger filter size). I only intend to use the lens for macro, not as a telephoto prime. I would be using it on a 5D III. The Sigma in Canada is a special order, meaning I can't return it.



They both have an about equal manual focus throw of almost 270 degrees.

The age of the optical design is most likely a non-issue. If/when Canon updates the 180 macro, it will probably go to 2x the price of the current model.

I would check your 5DIII manual and see what focus points are available with the Canon 180mm macro and what focus points are available with a f/2.8 lens.

The elephant in the room is the AF performance of the Sigma lens on a Canon body- an issue that doesn't exist for a Canon lens on a Canon body. That alone would steer me away from a non-returnable special order, despite the many good reviews of the Sigma lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 11, 2017)

The AF on the Sigma WAS a big concern, but it is quick and accurate even with outer points of my 5DIII. (I had bad luck with the 50 Art, great AF with the 35 Art, but felt the AF on the macro is so differently engineered, could only know by trying myself.)

Will soon try on 80D.


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 11, 2017)

Have you thought about the Sigma 150mm macro?

Much newer optics and design to either of the 180's and easier to use as it's lighter.

The 150 os macro was the first of the really good Sigmas with their new design optics.
I find it really good for macro.


----------



## chauncey (Mar 12, 2017)

Ah...Canon Utility Software is an absolute must use in using a macro lens...tethered shooting is the way to go. Kinda rules out Sigma.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 12, 2017)

Bennymiata said:


> Have you thought about the Sigma 150mm macro?
> 
> Much newer optics and design to either of the 180's and easier to use as it's lighter.
> 
> ...



The 180mm was released a year AFTER the 150mm! You might be thinking of an older version, the f/3.5?


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 12, 2017)

Regardless of which one you will obtain, also get a matt focusing screen (www.focusingscreen.com). On a 5D3 you have to use a watchmaker screwdriver to get to the screen, but not that hard. Did it on my 5DsR.
IMHO, AF is useless in macro. The AF performance of the 180 is famously sluggish. As others have pointed out, you use the focusing ring to get magnification, then focus by moving back and forth. To accurately judge focus, a matt focusing screen will be critical. AF confirm works, but often you want focus not where the focus points are. [Or it is way quicker to visually select in-focus-point, than fiddling with selecting AF points.]
I only used the Canon 180M, so cannot compare to Sigma. But I find the hood on the Canon very poorly designed. It is not easy to get it on straight, and the torque feel is very poor; bad gritty plastic on plastic feel. Nothing like the Zeiss Makroplanar hood. The lens also has some lateral color (none in Zeiss 100 MP). I use the 180 as a lens of last resort, if the Zeiss can't reach it.

Attached a couple of shots from yesterday in Melbourne (Australia). Leaf curling spider Phonognatha graeffei at f/8 on 5DsR. One full overview, second 100% crop. Shot with Canon 180 and MT 24Ex. The 180 also works quite well with TC 1.4x for 252 mm macro, and a bit > than 1:1. That is the third shoot of a mosquito (Aedes sp., I think), also from yesterday at f/11. Maybe a bit more relevant than baby portraits ;-) All hand held. Just quick and dirty jpegging in DPP; am on the road right now.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 12, 2017)

The AF on my Sigma 180mm f/2.8 is not "sluggish." It's quick, much quicker than on my Canon ef 100mm f/2.8. Quick enough to confidently take pictures of children! 

I do notice that the focus limiter switch is very important to set properly to one of three settings. When it is set correctly, very quick AF.

As for the Sigma 180mm being "famously" anything, I have to laugh. It is one of the most overlooked, rarely reviewed lenses sold by a big named lens company. In fact, several reviews promise a more in depth look, and never follow through.

This is a lens for, among others, garden, product, and insect photographers. It should also be good for food if there is enough room to back away from the subject, because with the 180mm focal length, photographer, camera, and tripod can be far enough from the subject to not interfere with lighting.

I have not yet looked into a ring light, but I understand the 86mm filter thread means adapters would be necessary.


----------



## mehraban (Mar 12, 2017)

For me, Canon is more usable - I have them both  and can compare.

Sigma is somehow weird - as Sigma usually is  

It's really heavy, IS is, IMO, weak and strange (sometimes works, sometimes does not work), filter size is unnesessarily large, shifting through modes is uncertain (and switch itself is prone to fall off)...

AF itself is far from being reliable (5d3, 1d4, 70d, 100d - all the same), lens likes to search even in good light and adequate contrast.

When Sigma 180\2,8 OS just appeared on the market, it looked awesome - but since I've tried 3 of them, each had some issues.

IQ is, IMO, pretty good in both lenses, but Canon needs less efforts to take this image 

Though for portraits Sigma may look better - but 135\2 looks much better, and I don't know why to keep 180mm _macro_ for _portraits_.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 12, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> Regardless of which one you will obtain, also get a matt focusing screen (www.focusingscreen.com). On a 5D3 you have to use a watchmaker screwdriver to get to the screen, but not that hard. Did it on my 5DsR.
> IMHO, AF is useless in macro. The AF performance of the 180 is famously sluggish. As others have pointed out, you use the focusing ring to get magnification, then focus by moving back and forth. To accurately judge focus, a matt focusing screen will be critical. AF confirm works, but often you want focus not where the focus points are. [Or it is way quicker to visually select in-focus-point, than fiddling with selecting AF points.]
> I only used the Canon 180M, so cannot compare to Sigma. But I find the hood on the Canon very poorly designed. It is not easy to get it on straight, and the torque feel is very poor; bad gritty plastic on plastic feel. Nothing like the Zeiss Makroplanar hood. The lens also has some lateral color (none in Zeiss 100 MP). I use the 180 as a lens of last resort, if the Zeiss can't reach it.



I would disagree about AF being "useless".

If one wants true macro, which is 1:1 and greater, then the AF does have to be turned off because once the focus ring moves, then one is not at 1:1 anymore. Move back and forth and click with the AF beep 

If one is seeking "close-up" moreso than the definition of macro (>/=1:1), then there is nothing wrong with using AF.

Most of my "macro"/close-up is taken with AF. I cannot focus a 5 series DSLR manually- even with a different screen (I have tried), and split screens are really only good for the center. Live view and a tripod, I can do. I find the OVF of a 1 series to be much better (clearer) than the 5 series, but manual focus for me is still way more miss than hit.

I suspect that the "sluggish" AF of the Canon 180mm macro is intentional and is there for focus accuracy. 

I would really like to see Canon come out with a 1D series body and an EVF, or some sort of EVF overlay that shows focus peaking.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 12, 2017)

mehraban said:


> Though for portraits Sigma may look better - but 135\2 looks much better, and I don't know why to keep 180mm _macro_ for _portraits_.



I see the very good OS on this lens as a bonus, not the main reason for buying it, so it works well for tightly framed portraits. For a portrait session, I'd not choose a macro for the standard shots, but sometimes it's nice for extreme close ups, extra shallow depth of field, something a little different. And it's fun! (If I just get done using the Sigma 180mm for garden photography, or my kids come out when I'm in our yard with it, I'm glad it works for photos of them too.)

At least we agree about the excellent 135 f/2!


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 12, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of which one you will obtain, also get a matt focusing screen (www.focusingscreen.com). On a 5D3 you have to use a watchmaker screwdriver to get to the screen, but not that hard. Did it on my 5DsR.
> ...



I only shoot MF, and have no problems. I grew up at a time when there was no AF, so that may have something to do with it. Plenty of Zeiss shooters can focus fine on Canon bodies.
I tried using AF on the 180, and even when I used it as a moderate tele, I turned it off again. At close up distances it gets worse and it is nothing but an annoyance. I find AF truly useless on that lens. The only other AF lens I have is a 300/2.8 IS, and AF is moderately useful there. But I usually turn it off there as well, so that focus is where *I* want it, with a composition that *I* want, not where AF wants to place it, or adjusting composition so suit AF point. The other canon macro I have is the MPE 65 (well-known to be MF), no problem shooting that handheld.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 12, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> I only shoot MF, and have no problems. I grew up at a time when there was no AF, so that may have something to do with it. Plenty of Zeiss shooters can focus fine on Canon bodies.
> I tried using AF on the 180, and even when I used it as a moderate tele, I turned it off again. At close up distances it gets worse and it is nothing but an annoyance. I find AF truly useless on that lens. The only other AF lens I have is a 300/2.8 IS, and AF is moderately useful there. But I usually turn it off there as well, so that focus is where *I* want it, with a composition that *I* want, not where AF wants to place it, or adjusting composition so suit AF point. The other canon macro I have is the MPE 65 (well-known to be MF), no problem shooting that handheld.



I have also used MF only film 35mm cameras, for a short time, but I did use them. I was younger and I'm certain that my eyes were better- but still corrected like today.

I don't know what it is, but I just can't really see very well in a DSLR focusing screen. The exception would be a 1D body over a 5D body- there is a noticeable difference in my eyes. I held onto that Nikon for a long time and regret selling it, but the viewfinder was always brighter than any later camera that I had with AF- even my EOS 620 that I still have today.

I do have a few older manual focus lenses, and I find those to be much easier to use than a typical electronic focus lens being used in MF mode (notable exception would be focus by wire USM lenses). The Canon and Sigma 180mm macros both have a focus throw of nearly 270 degrees and are an exception, compared to around 90 degrees (or less) for many other auto focus lenses.

I rented a Zeiss, and found that I couldn't focus it reliably on a DSLR without live view. Saved a few bucks there 

For what it's worth, I also choose my AF point


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 13, 2017)

Not definitive, but it matches my experience generally. Here's a link that shows a 30 second video of the Sigma 180 f/2.8 being focused on two targets, back and forth.

Pretty quick for macro, I think. My only other direct experience is with the Canon ef 100mm f/2.8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSptAaMJNkM


----------



## DanP (Mar 13, 2017)

Thanks to all for the input. These decisions are often difficult to make, and best made while the wife is away. Regarding AF for macro, I own the Canon 100mm f2.8L Macro IS (the noisiest IS lens I own - due to "Hybrid" part??). I do notice that as I start getting very close to the subject the AF performance gets less reliable. I wonder if the DPAF on the 5D IV is any better in this regard. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone with a 5D IV that has compared normal AF with DPAF at close distances.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 16, 2017)

What do you shoot? What magnification? 
The stabilization on the Sigma might be helpful for 1:5 to 1:2 hand-held shots of bugs, ditto for AF. 
The Sigma is a brick. The Canon is less of a brick. Weight matters for some people. Someone said that the Sigma weighs as much as the new Canon 100-400 v2. Well, I still like my old 400 f/5.6L for hiking/birding, partly because it is light and feels good when panning birds in flight handheld.

I have to say - I don't use AF at closer than 1:2. I have a 6D and use its fine screen.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 22, 2017)

I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16. 
The Canon is an old lens. But it's optimised for stopping down when focusing close. It's AF isn't ideal for general shooting. The Sigma sort of wants to be a jack of all trades and it want's to kid you that it's good for action, portraiture and serious macro work. When covering so many basses, there has to be design compromises. So I see this lens and an oddity and an overly large and heavy one too. Your millage might vary.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 18, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16.
> The Canon is an old lens. But it's optimised for stopping down when focusing close. It's AF isn't ideal for general shooting. The Sigma sort of wants to be a jack of all trades and it want's to kid you that it's good for action, portraiture and serious macro work. When covering so many basses, there has to be design compromises. So I see this lens and an oddity and an overly large and heavy one too. Your millage might vary.



The only downside so far is the filter size - there is no ring flash available for a 86mm macro. I was shooting with a regular flash in the past. Size and weight are ok to hold for a couple of hours.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 20, 2017)

This thread is now months old and I wouldn't usually respond to such things, but as it's been resurrected by someone else and one of these posts has unfortunate implications which other users might read when searching for information on these lenses, I think this one point does need addressing:



GMCPhotographics said:


> I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens.


(Rest cut for space.)

f/2.8 is useful because it allows the camera's AF points to operate at full sensitivity and accuracy, while slower lenses can cause problems for many bodies. It also keeps the viewfinder as bright as possible. Of course it can also be useful for anyone who uses the lens for purposes other than macro; the 100mm f/2.8 IS is very popular for portraits, as is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 20, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16.
> The Canon is an old lens. But it's optimised for stopping down when focusing close. It's AF isn't ideal for general shooting. The Sigma sort of wants to be a jack of all trades and it want's to kid you that it's good for action, portraiture and serious macro work. When covering so many basses, there has to be design compromises. So I see this lens and an oddity and an overly large and heavy one too. Your millage might vary.



The Sigma has OS and the Canon does not.

The Sigma will give you more and better AF points than the Canon.

The Sigma is quite sharp at non-macro distances, and f/2.8.

It would be nice if Sigma would update this lens to the latest Global Vision series.

Because the Sigma is not a Canon lens, one may encounter some AF issues on Canon bodies.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 22, 2017)

A few days ago I tried to purchase the Sigma 180 APO from Sigma's web site but they said my transaction didn't pass their fraud check. Apparently I stole my own card. I didn't argue, just got the 100L instead. Love it. First time in my life I see a working AF on a macro lens @ macro distances.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 22, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really see the point of the Sigma lens. No one needs an f2.8 180mm macro lens. No one shoots a macro subject wide open, especially at that focal length. Sure, top down flower abstracts can look cool, but this is better served with a shorter focal length like a 100mm. Everytime I've shot something that requires the extra focal length...I've needed to stop down to apertures like f16. So i would quite happily have a sharp f5.6 180mm macro if it was small, light and really sharp at f16.
> ...



Firstly, on my 5D III and IV, AF is quick and accurate.

Regarding updating this...No! For some reason I've had bad luck with ART series AF on the same two bodies, and I can't imagine the creamy bokeh and sharpness being significantly improved. This is an amazing lens for garden macro, and does the trick for smooth, very pleasant close-up portraits. If it ain't broke, please don't fix it!


----------

