Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 100/2.8 Macro vs 180/3.5L Macro  (Read 10364 times)
Gregory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


WWW
« on: December 16, 2007, 04:41:38 AM »
ReplyReply

given the choice of buying either the Canon 100/2.8 Macro or the 180/3.5L Macro, which lens would you buy and why?

I have a 70-300 DO which with an extension tube can give me a magnification of 0.46x. as such, I'm having a hard time justifying buying the 180/3.5L with its large price tag. flying insects etc would probably fly before I could get close enough to photograph them with the 180/3.5L, but I'm not experienced with the Macro lenses so I could be wrong.

any experience and opinions would be helpful. there may be one or more points that I'm forgetting in my considerations of the two lenses.

regards,
Gregory
Logged

Gregory's Blog: An Aussie in HK
Equipment: Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300 DO
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2007, 05:01:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
given the choice of buying either the Canon 100/2.8 Macro or the 180/3.5L Macro, which lens would you buy and why?

I have a 70-300 DO which with an extension tube can give me a magnification of 0.46x. as such, I'm having a hard time justifying buying the 180/3.5L with its large price tag. flying insects etc would probably fly before I could get close enough to photograph them with the 180/3.5L, but I'm not experienced with the Macro lenses so I could be wrong.

any experience and opinions would be helpful. there may be one or more points that I'm forgetting in my considerations of the two lenses.

regards,
Gregory
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One thing to bear in mind is that the longer the focal length the longer then stand-off distance allowed you for lighting, avoiding cactus barbs etc. etc. As you probably remember, depth of field is totally dependent on image size and NOT focal length, so go figure!

Remember, too, that for every insect that flies away another will come to take its place. It says so in country-and-western mythology.

Ciao - Rob C

EDIT: I better add the point about aperture having its say on DOF too,  but as you would presumably be using the same aperture anyway, not a problem.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 05:03:04 AM by Rob C » Logged

Gregory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2007, 09:00:58 AM »
ReplyReply

hello Rob.

"depth of field is totally dependent on image size and NOT focal length"

I thought DoF was dependent on sensor size/pitch, focal length and distance to subject. how does image size come into the equation if both images (100/2.8 and 180/3.5L) are the same size?

regards,
Gregory
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 09:01:50 AM by Gregory » Logged

Gregory's Blog: An Aussie in HK
Equipment: Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300 DO
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2007, 11:11:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I thought DoF was dependent on sensor size/pitch, focal length and distance to subject. how does image size come into the equation if both images (100/2.8 and 180/3.5L) are the same size?

You are correct, but if you shoot a bug at 36cm with the 180mm lens and the same bug at 20cm with the 100mm lens, both at f/22, you will get the same framing and the same DoF--approximately 2.5 millimeters. All of the variables cancel each other out when you use the same camera and same framing (by backing up with the longer lens) and same f/stop.
Logged

pete_truman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2007, 11:48:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I have both lenses but the 180mm lens is the most often used despite the fact its bigger and heavier. It helps to be a bit further from the subject and in many cases I wouldn't have been able to get the shot otherwise.

Whilst the DOF debate is interesting, the other factor is bokeh. I much prefer that on the 180mm lens; so very smooth.
Logged

Pete Truman
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2007, 12:16:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You are correct, but if you shoot a bug at 36cm with the 180mm lens and the same bug at 20cm with the 100mm lens, both at f/22, you will get the same framing and the same DoF--approximately 2.5 millimeters. All of the variables cancel each other out when you use the same camera and same framing (by backing up with the longer lens) and same f/stop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Same principle applies for shutter speed, too, in general, although the rotational and translational issues are slightly different, but the moral of the story is never to get a shorter focal length because you think it will be more hand-holdable; that is only true for the distant background.  The subject can blur due to camera shake just as much with a 50mm macro as a 180mm macro or a telephoto with extenders.  The true choices in focal length are really about how much you want your background to be, relative to the subject, and what kind of working distance you need.
Logged
daethon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2007, 07:09:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to echo the vote for the 180MM.  It is very bulky but it is extremely smooth, and very sharp.  It is probably one of my favorite lenses.  To get a bit more distance, you can use it with the 1.4X extender and get an amazing image, of most subjects from a long distance.  

One other thing to consider.  the 180MM internally focuses.  If it hasn't changed, the 100MM Macro extends when you focus.  This can cause all sorts of trouble when focusing on certain objects:  Like an ant on a ledge, you end up hitting the ledge with the lens without realizing you are doing it.
Logged

tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2007, 08:55:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If it hasn't changed, the 100MM Macro extends when you focus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I own the 100mm f/2.8 and it has internal focusing, same as it's 180mm partner.
Logged
daethon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2007, 09:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I own the 100mm f/2.8 and it has internal focusing, same as it's 180mm partner.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks.  My mom has the 100 f/2.8 from many many years ago.  I wasn't certain one way or the other.
Logged

Slough
Guest
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2007, 04:13:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
given the choice of buying either the Canon 100/2.8 Macro or the 180/3.5L Macro, which lens would you buy and why?

I have a 70-300 DO which with an extension tube can give me a magnification of 0.46x. as such, I'm having a hard time justifying buying the 180/3.5L with its large price tag. flying insects etc would probably fly before I could get close enough to photograph them with the 180/3.5L, but I'm not experienced with the Macro lenses so I could be wrong.

any experience and opinions would be helpful. there may be one or more points that I'm forgetting in my considerations of the two lenses.

regards,
Gregory
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Tamron 180mm macro lens is highly regarded and in tests is at least the optical equal of the Canon. But it is nothing like as robust.

The 100mm and 180mm lenses are quite different beasts. Handheld flash photography is possible with the 100mm lens. It is possible but much harder with the 180mm lens due to increased focal length, size and weight. (I have tried, using Nikon equivalents.)

The 180mm has some significant advantages. The longer focal length means greater working distance for nervous subjects, and a narrower field of view making smooth out of focus backgrounds easier to achieve. It also has a tripod collar so that you can rotate the lens with ease (that is more useful than you might thing, especially when stalking a nervous insect).

But the 100mm lens is cheaper, lighter and smaller. And if you get up early in the morning, you can catch insects when they are inactive.

For general macro work the 100mm is better IMO. For dragonflies etc, go for the 180mm (Canon or Tamron).

Here's some tests:

[a href=\"http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html]http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html[/url]

Which would I buy? The Tamron 180mm for insects. And the Tamron 90mm for fungi, and flowers.
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2007, 07:40:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I own the 100mm f/2.8 and it has internal focusing, same as it's 180mm partner.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doesn't internal focusing also mean that the focal length decreases as you approach the shortest focus distance?
Logged
pete_truman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2007, 02:30:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 180mm has some significant advantages. The longer focal length means greater working distance for nervous subjects, and a narrower field of view making smooth out of focus backgrounds easier to achieve. It also has a tripod collar so that you can rotate the lens with ease (that is more useful than you might thing, especially when stalking a nervous insect).

I should have added that a tripod, release, etc are all but essential using the 180mm lens (from any manufacturer!) when doing macro work - movements are accentuated and you will get shake if trying to hand hold.
Logged

Pete Truman
daethon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2007, 09:11:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I should have added that a tripod, release, etc are all but essential using the 180mm lens (from any manufacturer!) when doing macro work - movements are accentuated and you will get shake if trying to hand hold.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you go with the 180MM and are caught without a tripod, or are wanting to try and handhold for 1/2-1/4 life size (I wouldn't try anything more than that).  

2 recommendations:

1)  Train your arms.  I found holding a 10lb weight straight ahead for 30-90 seconds at a time, doing several reps, once or twice a day...an effective strategy for developing the appropriate muscles.  
2) Turn on the multi shot mode.  

These is obviously the "dirty" solution...ideally, you'll want to always work on a tripod for this type of shooting.  unfortunately, sometimes it is not manageable.
Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1044


« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2007, 10:48:17 PM »
ReplyReply

i think it depends on the camera and subject - i find the 100 very satisfactory with a crop-frame camera, but with full frame i'd be more inclined to the 180

the 100 has an overpriced accessory tripod collar that is not very smooth, i prefer switching from H to V with a RRS L-bracket

the 100 with the macro flash works well for me, although i prefer one of the heads on an arm for side/back lighting

don't know about the 180, but the 100 is not very fast/dependable to autofucus so have just bought a 60 macro for underwater with my 20D

if i'm doing (relatively) static subjects like flowers, the 90TS with it's depth of focus possibilities is the best - it works very well with a 1.4x and quite well even with a 2x - and you can use the 500d instead or in addition

you can also add a 1.4x to the 100 with good results, but the Canon 1.4x needs the 12.5 extension tube to mate to the lens, the Tokina will work directly, but i've not been able to make autofocus work - but again, it doesn't work all that well with this lens anyhow
Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2007, 12:22:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I have the 50 and 100 macro and really dont want anything longer because I like the perspective when being closer to the subject. Ive used the 180 and unless long working distance is a must I wouldnt buy it over the 100. Both the 50 and 100 are very sharp, the 100 is a tad better optically overall (slightly less CA, although both lenses at f8 are very low in that dpt.)
Logged
TMcCulley
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2007, 01:02:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
given the choice of buying either the Canon 100/2.8 Macro or the 180/3.5L Macro, which lens would you buy and why?

any experience and opinions would be helpful. there may be one or more points that I'm forgetting in my considerations of the two lenses.

1.  The longer lens gives you more offset from your subject.  The wind will not blow a spyder web into your lens because you are to close.  Small subjects may not notice your presence if you are further away.

2.  The longer subject distance also simplifies using different lighting techniques

3.  The tripod collor with a lens plate can act as a focus stage.  DOF is so shallow it is nearly impossible to make small adjustments.  Changing your focus will cause a change in subject size.  To maintain your size you need to move the lens.  This is much easier to do with the ability to slide forward and backward.  Also simplifies changing from portrait to landscape because you do not move the lens.


I use the Nikon 200/4.0 for taking pictures of flowers and spyder webs with dew.

Tom
Logged
Canon Bob
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2007, 12:42:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I have both and consider them to have different uses. The 180 is more of an artistic lens with nice bokeh due to the very shallow DOF. The 100 seems to be more technical but a little easier to use.

I think it's important to decide what your main subjects are likely to be and get the one most suitable....there'll always be a compromise with one lens.

Bob
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2007, 02:32:03 PM »
ReplyReply

For shots like this, longer focal length is better...

Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7441



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2007, 08:59:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Right, Jonathan. For that one I think I'd like to use something like a 6000 mm macro lens.  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2007, 10:26:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Wimp! I used a 35-350L at 350mm with the close-up adapter...
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad