I've not got one but when I asked the same question a month or so back several people could not praise that Sigma lens enough.
As they say though, a photo speaks 1003 words. Jacko uses one and you only have to look at his portfolio to see what can be achieved with this lens. My personal favorite of his is (posted completely without permission, so I hope that is ok Jacko) ...
I don't think anyone could look at that photo and not be impressed by whatever lens was used (and the talent).
I don't think anyone could look at that photo and not be impressed by whatever lens was used (and the talent).
Its worth realising that that was a pretty small crop from the center of the full image, so isn't a whole lot of use for evaluating the lens. Sweet shot though...
I know the Sigma is a very good lens, just want to put in a good word for the Canon 100/2.8 macro. The macro performance is probably comparable to the Sigma, which is to say outstanding, but you gain the USM focusing, making the Canon, IMHO, a better lens for general use. Of course there is the $100 price difference...
Either way, you can't go wrong, I think.
Gordon, I think you're exagerating when you're saying small crop. Not sure how you can make that statement without having seen the original. I did say it was a crop, and that I would locate the original. I actually posted some other pics from that day here so you can see other close ups:
I don't think anyone could look at that photo and not be impressed by whatever lens was used (and the talent).
Its worth realising that that was a pretty small crop from the center of the full image, so isn't a whole lot of use for evaluating the lens. Sweet shot though...
I know the Sigma is a very good lens, just want to put in a good word for the Canon 100/2.8 macro. The macro performance is probably comparable to the Sigma, which is to say outstanding, but you gain the USM focusing, making the Canon, IMHO, a better lens for general use. Of course there is the $100 price difference...
Either way, you can't go wrong, I think.
The Canon is double the price of the Sigma in the UK.
Looks like you left about 25% of the original, which was about what I thought it was from when you'd shown me the originals before - I think that is pretty substantial, don't you ? All I was pointing out is its hard to evaluate the quality of a lens when you only look at a small crop from the optical center - where the quality is always higher - also works out looking like 4x more magnification than it actually was if people aren't aware what you get from a 100mm macro.
