08-10-2011, 07:28 AM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1312921446' post='10560']
Depends on the situation of course. I think the weight difference is not really significant. So would the OS outweigh the WD? I've asked myself that many times debating if I should look at the Canon 100L to supplement the Sigma 150 non-OS. Still haven't come to an answer. On the Sigma 150 non-OS, I do often use it with a 1.4x TC to increase the working distance further, and/or for more magnification.
[/quote]
Yes, but the price and weight increase and WD decrease also puts it further away from the excellent (and cheap) Tamron 180/3.5. Not an easy decision.
If most of my macro subjects were insects I'd pick the Tamron, as WD would be more important than OS or max aperture. If not, the 100/2.8 IS L looks to be a better all-around lens because it's much smaller and lighter.
As a consumer I applaud Sigma for thinking out of the box and giving us unique lens options but despite its unique capabilities, I think that the target market of the 150/2.8 OS is rather small.
Depends on the situation of course. I think the weight difference is not really significant. So would the OS outweigh the WD? I've asked myself that many times debating if I should look at the Canon 100L to supplement the Sigma 150 non-OS. Still haven't come to an answer. On the Sigma 150 non-OS, I do often use it with a 1.4x TC to increase the working distance further, and/or for more magnification.
[/quote]
Yes, but the price and weight increase and WD decrease also puts it further away from the excellent (and cheap) Tamron 180/3.5. Not an easy decision.
If most of my macro subjects were insects I'd pick the Tamron, as WD would be more important than OS or max aperture. If not, the 100/2.8 IS L looks to be a better all-around lens because it's much smaller and lighter.
As a consumer I applaud Sigma for thinking out of the box and giving us unique lens options but despite its unique capabilities, I think that the target market of the 150/2.8 OS is rather small.