Sigma 180mm f2.8 os macro vs Sigma 150mm f2.8 os macro as TELEPHOTO lens.

[loulie]

I would value the opinion of those who have used either or both of these lenses on an APS-C camera. I am particularly interested in the mid-telephoto use of these lenses. Is the autofocus quick enough for birds in flight on a canon 7dii? I have the new canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is lens and I was looking for a faster lens, that doubled up as a macro lens.

[rtbaum]

Although fast enough for birds, not really long enough for birds. You really need the 400mm in my opinion for birds. On the other hand, either of the macros would be great for skittish bugs. Welcome to CiC.

[tclune]

I don't know this lens, so anything I have to say will be of a general nature. I would be shocked if a macro lens would work for birding. There are two big limitations, without regard to the focal length. First, true macro lenses are geared to focus precisely, so they are not geared for rapid focusing. There's just too many turns to get to where you're trying to go with a macro lens. And second, macro lenses don't tend to focus very far away. My birding lens will focus out to 125 M away before it gives up and goes to "infinity." I would be flabbergasted if Sigma geared their macro lenses for anywhere near that. My Tamron "portrait macro" seems to give up around 10 M out. I would expect that the bird shots you get will look like they are a bit out of focus, even if you do manage to track the bird with the lens. FWIW

[Bobobird]

I agree with both Randy and Tom.

I have the 150 and it focuses fast WITHIN a previously focused range. Try focusing from close up and then switch to far, it will take forever.

The 100-400 can focus as close as 30" and fast. More than decent pseudo macro lens imho.
For birds the 150/180 are not long enough and again the 100-400 is a much better choice.

[Geoff F]

I find the 180 Sigma to be very slow and somewhat erratic in AF, like many similar lenses, but I mostly shoot with manual focusing on that lens where it isn't a problem.

[loulie]

I appreciate your responses. Looks like I will need to change to a dedicated macro lens. Any views on the pros and cons of the 180 vs 150?

[William W]

I haven't used either, but as a general comment: considering that you now you are considering "a dedicated macro" and not a Macro Lens to double as a (longish) Telephoto Lens, it would be wise to first determine exactly what you want as the FL for your Macro Lens, with respect to the typical Working Distance that you will require.

WW

[loulie]

I would prefer the longer working distance of the 180, but I know it's as big and heavy as my 100-400mm.

[William W]

OK. Thanks. Understood.

I really made the comment just in case you were looking at these two Macro Lenses, because they were Telephoto Lenses for other work, like the Birding Photos that you mentioned.

Now that Birding Pictures were not on the agenda I thought you might not have fully considered a smaller, lighter, and probably more commonly purchased, Macro Lens in the 60~100mm FL range for your.

Out of interest I just had a look on the Sigma Site - yes the 180mm is heavy, nearly twice as heavy as the 150mm and the 180 has a very large Filter thread too, and a bigger price tag - I guess you have to weight all those factors into the value gaining only what seems to be a few inches of WD.

Sorry, I can't add any more ATM - as mentioned, I have used neither of the Sigmas Lenses: but the specs on both read that they are both very good Lenses.

Good Luck with your choice.

WW

[Geoff F]

That Sigma 180, Loulie, does have OS stabilisation which means it can be used as a handheld lens; but I still find it better on a tripod. Shooting handheld on a substantial camera, like my 7D, soon becomes a strain. But it can be handy to quickly unclip from the tripod for just a couple of handheld shots on that butterfly which is in an awkward position, etc. However, I still prefer to manually focus even when hand held.

AF minimum focusing distance is quite long for a close working macro lens; however, I can get a lot closer when manually focusing; which will work to around 12 ins.

It depends on exactly how you will be shooting, and your subjects. I mostly photograph various insects down to around 10 mm length for survey/recording work, so instead of sweeping and killing all insects for identification, I can now obtain identification in most cases from a photo. Which means shooting everything which comes my way, to identification quality.

The longer reach of the 180 mm lens means I can work at 2 ft or a little more from nervous subjects; and I often add a 1.4x converter for a little extra magnification.

But for larger subjects where you can approach fairly close or for studio work on dead specimens (or any other inanimate object) where you can get really close a 100 mm lens would be cheaper, lighter and possibly give slightly better quality.

[Bobobird]

Like Geoff I sometimes use a 1.4x teleconverter and add a 12mm extension tube to that for both bigger and better magnification while still keeping a bit of distance so as not to scare the bugs.

[loulie]

Thanks to all who responded. Your comments have been very helpful. I guess I will have to try before I buy.

[Loose Canon]

Since you haven’t specifically stated what you want to do with said lens loulie I’ll just mention another generic thought!

If you are going to shoot subjects that you want to light sometimes the longer working distance of a longer macro is nice. Helps get the camera/lens away from the subject and out of the way of your lighting but with the same frame-filling potential. Just depends on what you want to shoot and how/if you want to light it. As in a dedicated on-camera macro lighting rig or if off-camera strobes.

I find it kind of entertaining that as soon as a macro lens is mentioned its all about bugs all of a sudden! Maybe that’s the way it should be and probably to the vast majority the first thing that comes to mind, but I use a macro lens a lot and shoot very few, if any, bugs with it!

I shoot with a 100mm macro and have just put off going with a 180mm. Its only a matter of time before I pull the trigger on the 180.

This is an example of use of the 100mm macro. It worked okay but I really could have used the extra focal length of the 180mm to get the extra working distance. With all the lighting used for this shot and having to shoot closer things got really congested.

[loulie]

Thanks Loose Canon. I shoot for recreational use only, but I do like to get involved in my photography. I dont mind using a tripod for macro photography. At the moment I dont intend using a flash. Incidentally do you have any experience using the 180mm for distance, with focus limiter set for distance?

[Charlie Woodrich]

The 150 is widely regarded as one of the best macro lenses. I own one and am very pleased with it. Here's review from someone in the business of buying and renting lenses.

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/cano...acro-for-canon