[Garnock]

I'm considering a 1:1 macro lens and have more or less decided on the above Sigma.
I was having a look at the sticky from Matt linking to this;
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

It mentions a concern about an "extreme degree of decentering resulting in a very pronounced and disturbing drop in performance towards the upper left corner."
They do suggest it may be an isolated incident specific to the sample lens.

Does anyone have this lens and if so have you experienced this problem.

In general, does anyone have any comments on this lens,

The reason I've decided on this lens as opposed to the Canon 100 f2.8 is;
1. The extra working distance.
2. 150mm and f2.8.
3. Tripod collar included.

I'm quite new to macro so any help would be appreciated.

Cameron

[Joe T]

I take it you have also considered the Sigma 105 macro? it's quite a bit cheaper. It's also f2.8. Bear in mind that when at 1:1 ratio, the 'effective' aperture is more like f5.6. I cant explain why, but I can show you a link which sets it out.

The extra working distance will be useful for insects, but will be less useful in other situations.

Also, the smaller lenses (Canon 100, Sigma 105) do not really need a tripod collar, so it's not really a 'plus' on the 150mm.

I have a Sigma 105, and it's great.

Hope this helps a little.

[Garnock]

Thanks for the reply, Joe.

Yes I did consider the Sigma 105 but in my naivety ( in macro ) I thought working distance was everything.

I remember reading somewhere that the effective apperture would increase to 5.6 or so when at 1:1.
I was also thinking it might be a sharp portrait lens into the bargain and f2.8 would be useful.

I take your point about the tripod collar and the smaller lenses.

Thanks again,

cameron