Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro APO v. Canon 135mm f2 L USM Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro APO v. Canon 135mm f2 L USM

Jan 19 2006: You'll be hard-pressed to find better quality primes in this range than these 2 distinguished lenses. Shooting with these two primes was about as much fun as I've had using ANY lenses. They both have silent AF (the L of course faster being a non-Macro), excellent build, and their optics superb and thoroughly comparable. Although I don't have edge crops posted, both are STRONG performers in border performance (with the nod to the EX here). The MFD and true 1:1 macro ability makes the EX more "fun and creative" to use. Both lenses are EXTREMELY impressive optics that each offer their respective perks.

01	08	02	03
04	05	06	07
Test1	Test2	Test3	Bokeh
BonusTest

comment |

lightrules		02-Mar-2008 16:03
Mike, I've used both the 100 f2.8 and 150 f2.8, and optically they are both extremely good. So it comes down to whether you want the additional reach and working distance of the EX. Otherwise they are very similar optics.

MIke (argyle)		02-Mar-2008 14:15
Well, I just noticed the HSM marking on the lens, so skip that question :). Still curious about the macro comparison, though.

Mike (argyle)		02-Mar-2008 14:13
I was thinking of switching from the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro (USM version) to the Sigma 150 macro for the longer reach...do you have any tests or recommendations as far as macro capabilities go? BTW...is this Sigma that you're comparing to the 135L the HSM variant? Thanks.

lightrules		09-Oct-2006 23:46
Well, you also get 1:1 macro and longer FL. But all in all, both excellent glass.

Guest		09-Oct-2006 23:04
Close enough that the 300 bucks saved would happily stay in my wallet! Plus I'd get a nice hood and case :) Mr. Clean

lightrules		18-Jul-2006 14:44
The Sigma's AF is about as fast as any true macro lens; that said, the 135L is easily faster. It all depends on what you're shooting.

Guest		18-Jul-2006 14:24
how slow exactly is the focusing on the sigma 150mm. yes, i know its a macro lens - but say in everyday usage, would i be likely to miss a shot due to slow focusing over the ef 135mm f/2 L?

lightrules		16-Jul-2006 21:14
85L vs EF 85 f/1.8: This is a possibility but unlikely to be done. I'll go on record though as saying I'd never buy the 85 f1.2 so long as the 85 f1.8 is around at its price. 35L vs EF 35 f/2.0: This has been done already at my site (somewhat), and I can see why folks splurge for the L in this case, at least compared to the 35f2 (while a good lens it isn't really overall comparable to the L like the 30EX is). 24L vs EF 24 f.2.8: Another unlikely test, but interesting indeed. EF 200 f/1.8 vs EF 200 f.2.8: This will never happen ;) FWIW, most of the time, I'll take the lesser expensive option and make-do; the price differences are just too astronomical IMO. I think Petteri has the same sentiments. And as for Dave [CondyK], I have noticed a fetish from him lately regarding his 24-105L IS (and even the 17-40L) -- what's gotten into him?! ;-)

Peter (Pet-kal)		16-Jul-2006 19:45
Ohh Jojo, I do enjoy your web site very much. Clever and creative, as expected from you. talking about that, I'd love to see the following myth debunking comnparative tests done by you, when time and lens availability permits. 85L vs EF 85 f/1.8 35L vs EF 35 f/2.0 24L vs EF 24 f.2.8 EF 200 f/1.8 vs EF 200 f.2.8. I think there are many folks who are paying thru their noses for the more expensive lens version without having prior knowledge/quality data available to them on which to base their purchasing decision in a sort of an objective manner. BTW, I hear Condyke is suspected of having become a Canon shill........he has been reported to be waxing incessantly these days about the virtues of his 30D cum 24-105 f/4 IS. If true, that boy can be bought real cheap.....instead, he should have asked for at least a 5D/"brick" combo .

lightrules		16-Jul-2006 04:30
Peter-chap! Welcome and thanks for the kind words. I thought you might crack a few jokes here or there, but alas, you did not disappoint in other ways. I haven't seen you around POTN in a while, but regardless, visit anytime my friend. Hope you enjoy all this "pro-bono" work ;)

Guest		16-Jul-2006 02:21
JoJo, well done as usual, no platitudes, just test results. There are not too many people out there today who'd have your special "FEEL" for optical performance of lenses......thus I rely on your info more than on any other tester's findings. I am not alone in believing that the 135L is one of the best lenses Canon currently makes. A lens which comes to, say, 80% of its "goodness"must be one potent piece of glass indeed. Too bad for that EX finish....like a truck rustproofing compound....except it does not last nearly as long.(he he). Again, thanx for all the pro bono (?) work you do, and all the best. Peter (aka Pet-kal)

click on thumbnails for full image