Options

Canon Macro Choice

KhaosKhaos Registered Users Posts: 2,435 Major grins
edited February 16, 2005 in Accessories
I know the L series is supposed to be the shiznit, but when comparing the Canon 100mm f2.8 to the Canon 180mm f3.5 L, is the latter really worth more than double the price?

I've not read one bad review on the 100mm and I want a macro. So help me out. Should I spend the bucks or will I be perfectly happy with the 100?

I'm using a EOS 20D. Amateur. Just getting back into the hobby.

I currently have the Canon 28 - 135mm zoom and I'm also looking to get the 300mm f4.0 L IS.

Thanks.

Comments

  • Options
    fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    Khaos wrote:
    I know the L series is supposed to be the shiznit, but when comparing the Canon 100mm f2.8 to the Canon 180mm f3.5 L, is the latter really worth more than double the price?

    I've not read one bad review on the 100mm and I want a macro. So help me out. Should I spend the bucks or will I be perfectly happy with the 100?

    I'm using a EOS 20D. Amateur. Just getting back into the hobby.

    I currently have the Canon 28 - 135mm zoom and I'm also looking to get the 300mm f4.0 L IS.

    Thanks.
    I think the Canon 100/2.8 is an outstanding macro lens. It's certainly the sharpest of any of the lenses I own. Not sure if the 180 is worth the extra bucks...I think only you can make that determination. I didn't think so when I bought the 100.
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • Options
    AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    fish wrote:
    I think the Canon 100/2.8 is an outstanding macro lens. It's certainly the sharpest of any of the lenses I own. Not sure if the 180 is worth the extra bucks...I think only you can make that determination. I didn't think so when I bought the 100.

    i have the 100mm macro and it's quite sharp, nice color, contrast too. i can recommend this lens highly.
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Options
    luckyrweluckyrwe Registered Users Posts: 952 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    Andy, is the lens good for more than macro? Does it work fine for portraits?
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    Arnt these lenses always going to be sharp cause they are prime ?
  • Options
    AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    Arnt these lenses always going to be sharp cause they are prime ?

    being a "prime" lens doesn't guarantee sharpness 'gus. the sharpness comes from the optical quality, design, and build. there are some zooms that are far sharper than many primes....


    15651390-L.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Options
    AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    luckyrwe wrote:
    Andy, is the lens good for more than macro? Does it work fine for portraits?

    absolutely. it's a bit long for my tastes for portraits, but i know of folks who use it. if you have breathing room in studio, fine. certainly for outdoor portraits it'll be fine.
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    andy wrote:

    15651390-L.gif
    Forget the subject......THIS ONE BE MINE !!!
  • Options
    AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    Forget the subject......THIS ONE BE MINE !!!

    i thought you might like that one lol3.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,697 moderator
    edited February 11, 2005
    Khaos wrote:
    I know the L series is supposed to be the shiznit, but when comparing the Canon 100mm f2.8 to the Canon 180mm f3.5 L, is the latter really worth more than double the price?

    I've not read one bad review on the 100mm and I want a macro. So help me out. Should I spend the bucks or will I be perfectly happy with the 100?

    I'm using a EOS 20D. Amateur. Just getting back into the hobby.

    I currently have the Canon 28 - 135mm zoom and I'm also looking to get the 300mm f4.0 L IS.

    Thanks.
    The Canon 100 f2.8 macro is an exquisitely sharp lens.
    I own a Canon 100, but over the years I have also owned a Tamron 90 f2.8 Di macro and it is also excellent in sharpness.

    The macro lens I use the most though, is Tamron 180 f3.5 Di macro and I recommend this lens highly. The longer macros 150 SIgma f2.5, the Canon 180 and the Tamron 180 all offer the significant advantage of being farther from your subject when shooting - this can ba a REAL advantage when shooting living subjects like butterflies.

    IF I were in the market for a macro lens today and KNEW I wanted to shoot butterflies or other flying insects, I would purchase the Canon 180 macro - I would not expect it to be sharper than my Tamron, but I THINK it may focus a little faster and more quietly.

    I would also give the Tamron 90 a serious look if you are on a budget -it is an excellent lens and has gotten excellent reviews over the years. I am also interested in learning more about the new Sigma 150 f2.8 or f2.5 - not sure of the aperature. Sounds like a nice focal length for a macro for the APS sized DSLRs.

    thumb.gifthumb.gif
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    One chap on FM does a lot of Macro & sold his canon for tamron 180. Its $630 USD on B&H.

    To see his tamron stuff...just click on the 'lens drop down' menu & select tamron 180

    http://www.tom-crowning.com/search/search.php
  • Options
    KhaosKhaos Registered Users Posts: 2,435 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    Thanks for all the replies.


    I think I'll get the 100.
  • Options
    DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited February 11, 2005
    I'm getting on board with a macro too. Sold that 75-300 to get it actually. I was thinking the Canon 100mm, but I have been reading good stuff about the new Sigma 150mm. Anyone have any experience with this glass? I have a friend with the 180mm Sigma, but apparently the 150mm is all new technology.
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    DoctorIt wrote:
    I'm getting on board with a macro too. Sold that 75-300 to get it actually. I was thinking the Canon 100mm, but I have been reading good stuff about the new Sigma 150mm. Anyone have any experience with this glass? I have a friend with the 180mm Sigma, but apparently the 150mm is all new technology.
    I can only repeat what ive read Doc...but a lot of people that shoot macro are raving about the Sigma 105. I recon when things are this close in quality...its down to the shooter.
  • Options
    tmlphototmlphoto Registered Users Posts: 1,444 Major grins
    edited February 11, 2005
    I have the Canon 100mm 2.8. I have really enjoyed this lens. I actually use it more as a portrait lens and general walk around lens, but the macro part is good too. I feel like I need a fancy macro flash to really get quality macro shots tho. Its nice to shoot macro when I'm stuck at the house.

    Here is a shot with the Canon 100mm 2.8:
    4002349-L.jpg
    Thomas :D

    TML Photography
    tmlphoto.com
  • Options
    DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited February 11, 2005
    tmlphoto wrote:
    I have the Canon 100mm 2.8. I have really enjoyed this lens. I actually use it more as a portrait lens and general walk around lens, but the macro part is good too. I feel like I need a fancy macro flash to really get quality macro shots tho. Its nice to shoot macro when I'm stuck at the house.

    Here is a shot with the Canon 100mm 2.8:
    That's some really nice bokeh too! mmmmm me likes :D
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • Options
    luckyrweluckyrwe Registered Users Posts: 952 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2005
    That bug is making a pig of himself! :D
  • Options
    fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2005
    tmlphoto wrote:
    I have the Canon 100mm 2.8. I have really enjoyed this lens. I actually use it more as a portrait lens and general walk around lens, but the macro part is good too. I feel like I need a fancy macro flash to really get quality macro shots tho. Its nice to shoot macro when I'm stuck at the house.
    I shot some portraits with mine and found I had to soften them up in PS to make them acceptable, as the lens is so sharp that it captures every little blemish, hair, pimple, mole, wrinkle, etc.

    But for macro...the Canon 100/f2.8 absolutely rocks and gives plenty of working distance. Here are a few samples from my collection...

    4806889-L.jpg


    2285806-L.jpg



    4087025-L.jpg



    3197137-L.jpg
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • Options
    MongrelMongrel Registered Users Posts: 622 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2005
    hmmm...
    Looks like .308's?

    What model Benchmade? I like the CF scales! Very sharp, very sharp indeed :D
    If every keystroke was a shutter press I'd be a pro by now...
  • Options
    fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2005
    Mongrel wrote:
    Looks like .308's?
    5.56mm NATO.
    What model Benchmade? I like the CF scales! Very sharp, very sharp indeed :D
    That's the 690 w/ boron carbide coating. You've got a good eye for knives :)
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • Options
    DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited February 12, 2005
    Sigma 105mm EX f/2.8 vs. Canon 100mm f/2.8

    Here's my question - the Sigma has a working distance of 313mm and the Canon has only 149mm. They are both 1:1, so does 5mm difference in length change the minimum working distance so much?

    I ask because I found a great deal on the Sigma and I would actually prefer more working distance than the 6" the Canon gives. I've read decent reviews of the lens, but this distance discrepancy strikes me. i can't figure it out.
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2005
    Guys why couldnt you put an extension tube on say a Canon 200mm f/2.8 L prime ?

    Would it then do a nice macro ?
  • Options
    wmsnyderwmsnyder Registered Users Posts: 56 Big grins
    edited February 16, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    Guys why couldnt you put an extension tube on say a Canon 200mm f/2.8 L prime ?

    Would it then do a nice macro ?
    An extension tube would not give you the 1to1 macro. It would just let you focus closer. I own both the Canon 100 and 180 macros and they are both great lenses. The working distance with the 180 can definitely be a plus. The only thing with the 100 is I wish it would come with a tripod collar.
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,697 moderator
    edited February 16, 2005
    DoctorIt wrote:
    Sigma 105mm EX f/2.8 vs. Canon 100mm f/2.8

    Here's my question - the Sigma has a working distance of 313mm and the Canon has only 149mm. They are both 1:1, so does 5mm difference in length change the minimum working distance so much?

    I ask because I found a great deal on the Sigma and I would actually prefer more working distance than the 6" the Canon gives. I've read decent reviews of the lens, but this distance discrepancy strikes me. i can't figure it out.

    DOC, the Canon macro lens is an internally focusing lens - that is the front element is not the only change as you focus closer, and hence the true focal length may not be as long as it is listed at the full 1:1 extension. I know the 180 lens is actually about 130 at full extension - It has to do with the fact that the focal length is the distance from the center of the lens to the film plane, and as the lens is extended this normally would get longer, but with an internal focusing lens this is not always the case. It is kind of hard to explain with out drawings.
    There is a very good explanation of the change in focal length in macro lenses at max extension in Gilles Martin's "Macrophotography - Learning from a Master" Page 119-120.

    A lovely book that you will find deeply humbling as the macrophotographs are truly majestic and world class. I certainly did. It is available through that great library in the sky - Amazon. It is available as a paperback for about $25.00
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2005
    wmsnyder wrote:
    An extension tube would not give you the 1to1 macro. It would just let you focus closer. I own both the Canon 100 and 180 macros and they are both great lenses. The working distance with the 180 can definitely be a plus. The only thing with the 100 is I wish it would come with a tripod collar.
    ahhh...thankyou
Sign In or Register to comment.