100mm Macro Lens

[klindup]

I am planning to buy a macro lens and it will be either  the Canon 100mm 2.8 or the Sigma 105mm 2.8.  The Canon lens costs about twice as much as the Sigma.  I own the Sigma 30mm and the 50mm and am very pleased with both lenses.  The 50mm is incredibly sharp.  The question is this.  Is the Canon worth the extra money?   
Ken

[KeithB]

Doesn't the Canon have 3 axis IS? That might be worth the extra cost if you plan on hand-held macro shots.

[Bob Atkins]

The Canon isn't really twice as much as the Sigma (at least in the US)

Sigma 105/2.8 OS Macro $669 right now after $300 rebate

Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro $949

I think the Sigma OS is regular OS, while the Canon IS is their hybrid IS system which combines the regular angular (pitch/yaw) stabilization with translational (up/down/left/right) stabilization (which is very important for macro work).

If I was a serious macro shooter and I was going to handhold the lens I think I'd probably pay the extra $280 for the Canon.

[klindup]

Thanks for the input.  In the UK the Canon  lens costs around $1050 and the Sigma $570.hence the attraction of the Sigma lens.

[Bob Atkins]

If you wanted two of them it would be cheaper to fly to New York and buy them in person (add 8.875% sales tax in NYC).  I think the lowest cost London-New York round trip is about $600 right now.

I guess by the time you add on shipping, import duty, brokerage fees and VAT, just getting one sent from the US probably doesn't save you all that much. Adorama will ship to the UK, but the buyer has to deal with all the additional costs.