New Canon Camera

[rikski]

Hi guys, just been reading through the posts and would love your response to my dilema.
I use to have a canon SLR EOS5, time for the digital era but what would be best... Im looking at the EOS5 II, 7D or the new boy the 550.
Im only going to use it for macro, any views?

Rik Harris

[Gruditch]

Hi Rik, the 550D is a mid range camera, and sits two levels below the 7D & 5D MK II in the Canon range. Therefore if funds are available, I would ignore the 550D.

I have both the 5D MK II & the 7D, and I hardly ever use the 5D MK II for macro work. The 7D is faster, has much better auto focus ( when needed ), but most impotently, being a APS-C sensor camera, as apposed to the full frame of the 5D MK II, it gives a much longer working distance.

kind Regards Gruditch

[Markulous]

..... but most impotently......

I have a 7D. Is this why it doesn't always reproduce what I see?
Concerned Canonista


Can't answer the question for you, Rik but can say that I've had some good macros out of my 7D (teamed up with a Sigma 105, 150 or Canon MPe 65)!

[Rogerdodge]

7D and Sigma 150 would do it for me.
(Still struggling along with the antiques that are a 20D and 30D)

[rikski]

Thanks guys, looks like the 7D for me then!

[Gruditch]

Ignoring Mark, on the subject of lenses Rik, I assume that you already have a macro lens. If its not a Canon macro, then what it is, when it was made, etc. Could come into play, as it may not work with a DSLR.

7D and Sigma 150 would do it for me.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, I would not of hesitated to agree. But my Sigma 150, is a little sick/damaged, and in need of some repair. Lisa's 150 has been back to Sigma on no less than three occasions. As one of us, often it seems , ends up macro-less, I thought I would buy another macro. Originally the idea was for when my Sigma 150 is repaired, the new lens would become a spare we both could use. I ordered the new Canon 100 is, but then changed my mind as it would be to short for me, after using the 150 for so long.
I thought it a bit boring to get another Sigma 150, so I got a Tamron 180m F/3.5.
There's nothing between the two lenses in IQ, they are both great. They both have rubbish AF, but the Sigma wins out there, as it has a focus limiter. The Sigma is also faster, being a 2.8, as opposed to the 3.5 of the Tamron, but you do get an extra 30mm with the Tamron.
Build quality, nothing in it, their both plasticy. But the manual focus on the Tamron is gorgeous, a long movement is needed to move just a couple of mm in focus. And surprisingly I like the overall feel of the Tamron more than the Sigma. Bucking the trend I know, but if I could only keep one, it would be the Tamron.

BTW Mark, spell check keeps wanting to change Tamron, to Tampon, its only a matter of time.

Sorry to hijack you thread Rik.

Regards Gruditch

[Markulous]

If you think 105mm @ 1:1 is close, then try a 65mm @ 5:1!

Always interesting how others find using various items of gear - I actually prefer the 105 over the 150 for both it's short travel, rapid MF (I always seem to get "lost" focussing the 150) and I can use slower shutter speeds. Prefer the 150 for build and the ever-so-useful tripod ring for rapid landscape to portrait (and all points in-between!) when tri/monopod'd. The 180 never came into the equation as it only goes to f/3.5 (and I'm a big fan of shallow DOF)

Having said all that, if I'm honest I would dearly love to have that new 100mm IS. It might only give 2 extra stops but anything that helps me out has got to be good!

[JKT]

And surprisingly I like the overall feel of the Tamron more than the Sigma. Bucking the trend I know, but if I could only keep one, it would be the Tamron.

Aha! A convert!!!

[FISHiEE]

My camera choice would be the 7D of the 550 if budget was tight. Full frame is only ever a compromise for macro I think in most live situations as depth of field and working distance are reduced. It does have much better high ISO noice performance though which can be handy for macro but still the 7D is IMO the best choice.

As for lens I have sworn by the sigma 150 for years now but do fancy the new canon 100IS. I've a friend in France that has one teamed up with the 7D and he can shoot handheld in the most impossible situations (ie very low light at something rediculous like 1/10s when I was having to resort to tripod and a timer) and get sharp shots. He also seemd to get higher shutter speeds under the same settings as me using the 150 which I need to investigate further. Maybe the glass lets in more light? It also has a better lens hood than the sigma (longer, so cuts out lend flare better if you are shooting close to directly into the sun which I am doing more of nowadays). Working distance is less than the sigma, but I'm sure that if I can get within 39cm of the subject I could get within 31 without too much more effort. I'd certainly like to try one seriously for a while.

[FISHiEE]

Incidentally before my mate had the canon he had the Tamron 180 which he thought was inferior to the older sigma 180 he had before that. When I was with him with that Tamron it used to make a loug click/bang when switching to manual focus and I used to think there was a sniper amongst us!

[Gruditch]

Its not going to cost me an arm and a leg to fix the Sigma 150, but I still prefer the Tamron. But as you say, the manual auto shift, although very clever isn't very subtle.

Why did Canon make the new macro at 100mm, they already have a 100mm. If it was 150m I would have it tomorrow.

Regards Gruditch

[JKT]

They've chosen their focal lengths. Just wait for their new 180 with IS. I'm pretty sure there will eventually be one ... and it will be horrendously expensive. I'm also just as sure that I'll want it.

[rikski]

Please understand I'm a newbie with digital equipment but surely the Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM lens would be better than the sigma or tamron would it not?

[Markulous]

My (somewhat poor) anaology would be to compare Skodas with BMWs. They both get to where they need to go equally effectively - arguably the BMWs are better made and better looking but they are a lot more expensive. But also remember: no one likes BMW drivers!

I can compare the Canon 100mm (non-IS) with the Sigma 105mm as I've used them both. Very similar IQ but the Canon is better made, has internal focussing (USM and faster vs the clunky Sigma focus - but I don't use AF) but doesn't come with a lens hood which by the time you've added that to the cost of the lens makes it all considerably more expensive. Having said that, I'm sure I'll get the 100mm IS sometime (and it'll have to be Canon as they're the only ones with true macro stabilisation), as the lure of a stabilised macro is difficult to resist - even if it is only 2 stops!

[Gruditch]

After seeing Marks effort, I'm not going to try an analogy.

Optically I doubt that you would gain anything with the Canon over the Sigma, or Tamron, Rik. But the build quality of the Canon is far superior to both the others.

I'm not the only person on these forums, to find out the hard way, that the Sigma 150 doesn't much like it when your tripod falls over. The Sigma 180, and Tamron 180 both feel very similar in build quality, plastic, so I would expect the same. But the Canon 180, is made of metal, hence the weight, and feels very solid, In fact its massive, but god is it expensive.

Regards Gruditch

[bugmadmark]

As an Ex Skoda (Felicia) owner I can only say you can't really compare it to a BMW - especially as I survived a 60 mph crash (no airbags) into another car in it. Yes I was quite badly injured - but we survived due to the Skoda design. So I guess, using that analogy above, explains why I too went for the SIgma 150 last year and not the Canon. Hmmmm. Mind you perhaps given the cost of these lenses they could design an in-lens airbag system so that when your tripod falls over your assets are protected!

Still struggling to get to grips with the 150 as not had enough time to practice - typical given the fact that it has been a 'good' year for butterflies around where I live. In fact I did make use of the 150 throughout the winter - not for macro , but to document my son and his pals playing in the local football team. This is not an ideal lens for sports but is the only lens i had that had telephoto capability. I was saving up for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS USM so that I could use for animals and football - and then the buggers (i.e. Canon) decided to replace this tried, tested and highly recommended lens with a Mark II - and the price went up not a bit - but by several hundred pounds. . The cheaper 70-200/300 telephotos are too slow unfortunately and I think the IS will be invaluable for action if it is low light. Hmmmm.

[Markulous]

As an Ex Skoda (Felicia) owner I can only say you can't really compare it to a BMW - especially as I survived a 60 mph crash (no airbags) into another car in it. Yes I was quite badly injured - but we survived due to the Skoda design. So I guess, using that analogy above, explains why I too went for the SIgma 150 last year and not the Canon

Great cars and why I've the Sigma 105 and 150

Hmmmm. Mind you perhaps given the cost of these lenses they could design an in-lens airbag system so that when your tripod falls over your assets are protected!

Well, I've managed to let my tripoded camera + 105 fall over a couple of times - the solid metal lens hood got a bit bent both times but otherwise no damage to remainder!

I was saving up for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS USM so that I could use for animals and football - and then the buggers (i.e. Canon) decided to replace this tried, tested and highly recommended lens with a Mark II - and the price went up not a bit - but by several hundred pounds. . The cheaper 70-200/300 telephotos are too slow unfortunately and I think the IS will be invaluable for action if it is low light. Hmmmm.

Personally, I went for the non-IS as I want the best possible image and in low light where the IS would be useful the action would be a little too motion blurred even for me (and I'm a big fan of motion blur!)

[rikski]

You've given me info and a laugh, I love this site! Thanks guys.

[JKT]

I'm not the only person on these forums, to find out the hard way, that the Sigma 150 doesn't much like it when your tripod falls over. The Sigma 180, and Tamron 180 both feel very similar in build quality, plastic, so I would expect the same.

And you would be wrong. My Tamron survived a fall to asphalt without no apparent ill effects. The camera was hanging from my neck and I lost my footing. The camera/lens combo hit the road lens cap first. I had a difficult job of prying the cap out, but that was all.

[Gruditch]

Hi JKT, I would expect even the flimsy Sigma 150 to survive a straight on impact,...... maybe . But change the angle just a bit, and the damn things are rolling about the track in two pieces. When I've read comparative reviews on the two lenses, more often than not, they say the build quality of the Sigma is better. After handling the two that isn't the impression I get, I suppose sooner or latter I will find out.

Regards Gruditch