It is. The only macro lenses I've ever encountered that were sharper and better-corrected than the Sigma 180mm are the original Sigma 150mm (the non-OS original is a lot better optically than the OS revision), the Zeiss 100mm f/2 and the Canon TS-E 135mm f/4L. Those all have their own drawbacks, though. The original Sigma 150 has no stabilisation and a focus motor which is, shall we kindly say, "retro", and the Zeiss and Canon are both all-manual and only give 0.5x magnification, though of course a little extension gets them to 1.0x very easily. The Sigma 180mm is only a hair behind those three and much more practical (bar the weight). I wish the Canon 180 was as good or would be revised, since its AF is slightly better and a new one would presumably have much better AF, but as it stands the Sigma is the better optic and gives you stabilisation (yes, it doesn't give you the full 5000 stops of IS Canon's own lenses do on an R5, but 'just' a couple of stops of stabilisation is better than none at all), which in the field (both figuratively and, quite often, literally in a field) makes it the better buy.If the Sigma 180mm is considered a step above the 150mm, I might develope some buyers remorse for the EF180L
... Y'know, if you can find someone willing to part with one. There's a reason they don't come up for sale often and when they do people usually ask for the full new retail price, even for a copy that's a bit scratched up.
Upvote
0
