I had a Canon 100mm macro and it was a beautiful lens for macro. It was crystal clear, sharp and allowed a nice distance between subject and camera. On a 400D this would be the equivalent of a 150/160mm lens. However, mine suffered when used as a 100mm prime lens a little. The images looked slightly soft. Autofocus was also a little slow, especially in dim light.
I sold it for virtually the price I bought it (so they hold their value well). Whilst I like macros I dont tend to need a lot of distance between camera and subject so decided to invest in the Sigma F2.8 macro which is considerably cheaper.
As a macro I love it. As a prime, it makes a good portrait lens (on a digi) or a standard lens (on film).
I suppose it's horses for courses. Both (and probably the others you mentioned) are excellent lenses. If you need to separate yourself from your macro subject (eg insects) then choose a longer lens. If your subjects do not mind you being close then a shorter lens may be a better option, particularly if budget is a consideration.
Enjoy your choice.
All the best.
Paul
|
