www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/sigm ... announced/
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/ne ... os_hsm.htm
Long rumoured, and eagerly anticipated (by me at least) the replacement for the old 180.
Now offering f2.8, and OS (IS or VR for Canonista and Nikonians) - probably going to be quite pricey.
Can't wait to get my hands on one.

The only 180mm Macro to offer F2.8. Damn it, I was happy with my Tamron.

Regards Gary

I can't see f2.8 being significantly better than f3.5, and it comes at the cost of size and probably price. It may help with auto-focus, but who uses that for macro? And I don't suppose many people use a macro lens wide open either, so the depth of field advantage is negligible. The only advantage I can see is brighter viewfinder image, but that's going to be marginal over f3.5, isn't it?

Agreed - the f2.8 will bring with it bulk and weight.
Lenses tend to perform best stopped down a stop or two from wide open.
Thus an f2.8 lens at f3.5 will (ought to) have better IQ than an f3.5 lens at f3.5.

Because we see the viewfinder image at the wide open aperture, the shallow DoF will make the subtle difference between "in focus" and "just out of focus" more noticeable. This will be particularly useful when manually focussing.

Also the extraordinarily shallow DoF at f2.8 should be able to create some wonderful effects (probably not for butterfly photography though...)

The effects of OS/IS/VR tend to diminish as the camera to subject distance decreases, but it will still offer some advantages for the (frequent) times when the tripod is not clamped down, or when using a monopod.

Will I be tempted to "trade up" from my old 180?
Probably not.

However, if I were progressing to a DSLR, and looking for a top notch macro lens, this would be up there with the Canon 100 IS and the Sigma 150 OS and the Tamron 180.

A tricky choice just got trickier.

Rogerdodge wrote:A tricky choice just got trickier.

Indeed. So far there are two contestants for the Tamron replacement ... and both of them from Sigma. I think I would have preferred 180/3.5 as the added weight is not welcome on hiking trips. Canon and Tamron, get those upgrades out! My Tamron is in service, and I expect it to be operational for long time still, but the IS/OS is irresistible.

JKT wrote:So far there are two contestants for the Tamron replacement ... and both of them from Sigma.

Tamron have said that they will have a new Macro in 2012 but I expect that means a replacement/upgrade for an existing lens rather than a new length.

dilettante wrote:It may help with auto-focus, but who uses that for macro?

Fishiee

The AF on my old Sigma 150mm got some occasional use, but its so useless on my Tamron 180, that the AF switch may as well not be there.

In the end, the added weight to an already weighty camera bag, the limited advantage of an OS Macro, and no doubt the price, £1200 at guess, would never warrant trading in the Tamron.

Regards Gruditch

dilettante wrote: It may help with auto-focus, but who uses that for macro?

I may be in a minority of one, but I do. The AF on my old Sigma 150mm seems to work fairly well, so I would be genuinely interested to find out why auto-focus is not recommended for macro, and/or why manual is better.

Roger Gibbons wrote: so I would be genuinely interested to find out why auto-focus is not recommended for macro, and/or why manual is better.

Generally because with the aperture wide open, the depth of field is so shallow that the chances are high that the AF won't hit the exact spot you want to focus on. And unless you're using a tripod, there's a high chance that between the camera focusing and you pressing the shutter release, you've moved the camera a fraction (or your subject has moved) and changed your focus point.

With manual focus, I usually focus close to where I want, then move the camera back or forward a fraction until the focus is exactly where I want it. You can use AF to do the first part, but it's probably no quicker, and often slower if your lens hunts. Particularly with non-HSM/USM/SSM lenses the focus gearing on macros is often very fine, so auto-focus can take a while. And if it misses and you don;t have a focus limiter and it goes all the way from close to infinity and back hunting for focus, that can make the difference between getting your shot or not.

But more power to you if AF works for you!

In terms of using AF I'm in the same camp as Mr Gibbons, but then I'm only using a 18-55 kit lens. I find it useful as I'm not really sure sometimes whether I can trust my knackered eyes. Will I need to move to manual focusing if I get a "proper" macro (I was thinking of moving up to a 100mm this year)?

Cheers

Wurzel

Gruditch wrote:

dilettante wrote:It may help with auto-focus, but who uses that for macro?

Fishiee

The AF on my old Sigma 150mm got some occasional use, but its so useless on my Tamron 180, that the AF switch may as well not be there.

In the end, the added weight to an already weighty camera bag, the limited advantage of an OS Macro, and no doubt the price, £1200 at guess, would never warrant trading in the Tamron.

Regards Gruditch

Yep af 99% of the time for me. I haven't yet found a benefit In using mf. I find that the sigma 150 does fine on its own

I agree with others that this lens is going to be both weighty and expensive. I would currently pick the 150os over this...unless there is a big difference In image quality which I doubt.