Canon 180 L macro or Sigma 180 macro

Hi folks, I am not too sure what is best, and if I am going to get either, but toying with the idea of getting a 180 macro lens for those skittish critters.  I have read the reviews out there, and it sounds like the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM Lens (for Canon) would be better than Canon's L lens.  Any thoughts or suggestions?  Let me know if you have the Sigma and what your opinion is.  I had told myself I was never getting anything but L lenses from here on, but the Canon doesn't have IS, and, it is an f3.5.  Appreciate your advice on the matter. 

Hi Shirley,

I use one of the older Sigma 180 mm f3.5 macro lenses on my Pentax. The optics are excellent and the build quality is good and it has been a durable lens. The newer 180 mm built for Canon weighs in at 3.5 pounds which is due to the bigger lenses needed for an f2.8 lens over the f3.5 model.  The Canon model is optically similar but not as fast as the Sigma model with a wide open aperture at f3.5.  Either lens will work for you.  I have not dabbled much with Canon equipment so I can't really provide you info on actual use.  At macro distances you can get buttery smooth backgrounds art f16 with either lens.  However, if you plan on using a teleconverter, the f2.8 lens  will give you slightly more light to work with (See https://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&t=sigma_180_macro&npost=&show= ).  I never use image stabilization, but it can come in handy for light starved scenes with handheld camera systems.  Good luck  and have fun with your shopping.......................Jim

I have never had good luck with Sigma and would never choose it over OEM.  For serious macro work, not to mention best results, one should be on a tripod anyway so IS is a moot point.  That also renders the 2/3 stop slower max aperture rather insignificant.  In addition, if you have a newer Canon body, the ISO performance is quite good at higher levels thereby also mitigating the lack of IS and/or slower max ap.  Canon L lenses are very high quality lenses and the 180 macro has been touted as one of the sharpest.  I have the 100mm Canon macro and have found the reach to be totally adequate.  So if the 2.8 & IS are that important to you, you may wish to consider than one.  Good luck.  

PS:  Had another thought.  You could first try extension tubes to be sure macro is your thing before plunking down significant dollars for a macro lens of any brand.  A set of 3 won't set you back that much, can be used on your existing lenses, and if you have a longer one, you can have your reach too.  Just thinkin...

Hi, Shirley  - for what it's worth, I'd urge you to consider a macro zoom. I love my 70-180 macro zoom, and it gets exceptionally sharp images:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=243011&CGISESSID=acc44cbee44e19f8b484efb5e53dc0bc&u=17180&title_action=

It's also nice in theory to say "always use a tripod, so image stabilization is not needed" - but I hardly ever use a tripod. It's impossible for me to use a tripod when trying to catch a bee or dragonfly. I almost never use a tripod, even for flying birds. I consider IS critical.  I usually can't be bothered with a tripod, although my poor husband still always drags it around for me. 

You might rent the lenses you're interested in and try them out. Your style of shooting is YOUR style and may be quite different from anyone else's.
Sandy

Thank you, Jim, John, and Sandy.  All of you had some good advice, and that is what I was looking for.  Jim, I was glad to hear that you have enjoyed the older model of Sigma's 180 mm, I wanted to hear something like that.  I am definitely into macro, so no question on that part.  I have tried using the Canon 100-400 L with the teleconverter, as well as with extension tubes, just trying to get that butterfly or whatever that just doesn't allow me close up.  I already have the 100mm L, (Canon) and that is a keeper, no question about it.  I so enjoy it, and with my twin flash set up, I can really get in on some little critters.  But, I was kind of thinking of getting a real macro lens that will allow me to get the flighty critters as well.  The 100-400 L hasn't done bad at times for macro, but I have seen some of the photos on here done with a 180 mm, and I liked the results.  Not sure what I will do yet.  I do like to shop in my bag first, so may try the 100-400 mm L a little more, maybe without any attachments for awhile and see what that does for me for the skittish critters.  Sandy, that is me too, I just don't get tied down with the tripod as much anymore.  I push the ISO up enough to try to get the shutter speed, etc.  By the time I set up whatever it is has moved on, and I am having to move again.  I just find that I can do better with IS, but like John was saying, I like those L lenses.  I think maybe the idea of renting first is some good advice.  Just wish Canon would put that on their 180 macro, because I wouldn't even be considering the Sigma!  I do appreciate your input, all 3 of you.  What a great site this is!!!

I just checked out the links, Jim and Sandy. Very impressive.

Shirley, I have the Sigma 150 f2.8, and I think it is an excellent lens. No complaints. I think a few others here use it as well for macro work. I previously had a 180 Tamron 3.5 macro, which I dropped and broke, and I replaced it with the Sigma 150 a few years ago. I greatly prefer it for the extra stop and better quality. I don't miss not being able to go to 180; the difference is neglible and can be fully negated by cropping. I'll also disagree with John a little about IS. While shooting from a tripod is preferred, obviously, and necessary for most really close up macro, IS gives you the option when chasing fast moving butterflies in the garden (for example) or doing other hh photography. 

Thank you, Scott.  I do appreciate that info.  Something to consider, which I hadn't thought about.

Shirley,  The one thing that I don't see mentioned here, is how they behave during focusing.  The canon does not change length.  I'm thinking that in years past, a very good tamron macro lens got longer as you focused.  A lens that gets longer as you focus may scare away the critters that you're trying to get close to.  Unless you're thinking about very large prints, I don't think you'll notice the subtle differences in image quality.

Good thoughts, Mark.  I have been so far away with the 100-400 mm, especially with the teleconverter on, that movement hasn't been an issue.  I was thinking a prime lens, and really leaning towards 180 mm macro.  I just wish Canon would put IS on theirs, as it would just not be any question about it.  I also have thought about the fact that I might would be fine without the IS, since both bodies (5D Mark II and III) allow a pretty high ISO, hence the shutter speed can be fast enough to not need it.  I think I could live with the f3.5, and would definitely like the lighter weight than the Sigma.  I have had one other Sigma lens, a 50-500 mm lens, and I was never happy with it.  I sold it and got the 100-400 mm L lens, and haven't looked back.  So, I am a little skeptical on getting another Sigma, but then I look at the photos on here that others have taken with it, and think back too, that when I had that Sigma lens, I wasn't as far along in my photography either, so that could had a role, and the lens was an older model as well.  Renting first, as Sandy had suggested,  might be a good idea, really.  I do appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughts on this subject.  All of you have been providing some good advice, and some things that I never took into consideration.  This is good.  I have recommended this site to 3 different photographers lately, so hoping they will come on board too.  It is well worth it!