Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work
  
 
avengethis
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


I am looking at getting a macro lens that does have auto focus for portrait work if needed but I currently have a 24-70 2.8L and a 70-200 2.8L IS. So ideally im looking at what will be a better macro lens. Both seem like really solid lenses. The 100 has IS to allow for some hand holding but most my work will be done on a tripod. The extra reach of the 185 would be nice as well to allow for more versatility. To me it seems like a toss up as both have really good reviews but looking for some input from those that have maybe experienced both and might have a preference 1 way or the other.

Edited on May 21, 2012 at 01:05 AM · View previous versions



May 21, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


I've always preferred longer FL for macro especially on FF, and for critters and it also isolates the subject better with it's smaller FOV. I have a Sigma 150 f/2.8, but I got a good price on a 100L macro and often use that on my 7D now, since the 150 lacks IS and I mostly hand hold and often I'd have to bump the ISO up too much to get a sharp shot. Sigma are about to release a 180 f/2.8 OS and I will sell my 150 if this lens is as good as I hope.

IQ is not an issue with ether of these lenses. My preference would be for longer FL on a 5D especially if you are going to be mainly using a tripod anyway.

One way I may suggest for you to make a choice is to add an extension tube (25mm or 36mm) to your 70-200L IS and try it at 100mm 185mm and see how you find that FL and FOV for close-up work.



May 21, 2012 at 12:30 AM
avengethis
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


Thats actually a really good idea on the extension tube. A buddy of mine has a set so i will probably try that out.


May 21, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


Id say that for critters the general consensus is that a longer lens is better, so the 185mm would be a good choice but the 100L IS macro is awesome and much more versatile since it has IS and its f2.8. Its a tough call but I would get the 100.


May 21, 2012 at 12:42 AM
Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


I have the Canon 180L and the IQ from that lens is one of the best I've ever seen. The contrast and colors are amazing, and the sharpness is really good too.

The 180mm focal length does require a faster shutter speed to avoid camera shake, and the DOF is really tight sometimes. So, that means you use small apertures and need plenty of light or a higher ISO.

The IQ of the 180L is just plain dreamy.



May 21, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


With macro dof is independent of FL when you are in the macro regime. At 1:1 you will find basically the same DOF with 100mm as 185mm and in fact somewhat paradoxically the longer FL may have fractionally more DOF. Do not try and use normal DOF calculators to prove this, as they are based on approximations that do not work in the macro regime.


May 21, 2012 at 02:08 AM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


Get the 180L...why
- IQ is just WOW sharp, same for colors, contrast n saturation
- reach, distance to subject
- can use 1.4x or 2x extenders (the 100L can not)
- comes with the tripod ring (not an extra $200 like the 100L)

Only pluses I see for the 100L are IS, it's much lighter and it's a bit faster at f2.8; I have and use the older non-L 100...but would rather shoot with my buddies 180.

My fav FD MF film lens is the FDn 200 f4 macro...still have it, use it on my 40D with an adapter. I've 50 and 100's as well, but always seem to run back to the 200

Jerry

PS. I hear the Sigma 150 is quite good, and they just announced a 200 f2.8 is in the works!



May 21, 2012 at 09:07 PM
mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


What kind of critters for macro, big or little? Super closeups or more environmental macros?

I have 100L and a 300L that I use with tubes. I end up using the 300 a lot for butterflies, bees, etc. - it's great for say a shot of a bee on a flower where you want a bit of environment in the photo.

The IS on the 100L is indispensible for me at times, so I have not really wanted to replace it, despite having a terminal case of Zeissitis. It's a really nice portrait lens, too.

So I'd vote for a 100L now, add a 300/4 if you want plenty of working distance with an easy-to-use lens.



May 21, 2012 at 09:20 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


2nd that vote on the 300f4L IS with tubes, great combo


May 21, 2012 at 09:39 PM
pizdets17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


I use 70-200 II w/2x and tubes.


May 21, 2012 at 09:47 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Sjjindra
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


pizdets17 wrote:
I use 70-200 II w/2x and tubes.


How well does the 70-200 IS II work for macro (with tubes)? Does the IS still help much?

When I go out on my kayak, primarilly for birds, I usually only carry one lens, almost always the 70-200 and a 1.4 extender that I will add occasionally. I have the 100L 2.8 and there are times I wish I had it with me. I wouldn't mind purchasing a set of extension tubes and carrying those with me as well, if it would be effective for an occasional macro.

Thanks



May 21, 2012 at 10:05 PM
M Vers
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


Although the 180L is a great lens I would never recommend it due to cheaper, comparable options, like the Sigma and Tamron variants. I would also toss in the Sigma 150, which is an excellent lens for both portraiture and macro work and is a good compromise between the 100 and 180 FLs. I see no advantage to the 100L since you say you will be using it on a tripod, so unless you intend to sway from that path I would consider the non-L version which would save you some money.
FWIW, here are a few recent shots from the Sigma 150 with or without a 1.4x TC and or tubes
























May 21, 2012 at 10:22 PM
adamfilip
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


I have had the 100 non is 2.8 and currently own the 180 and its awesome.. My fav lens.. its slow to focus but deadly sharp and more comfortable with skittish bugs.. also makes a great portrait lens if you can get far enough back.


May 22, 2012 at 02:05 AM
jamato8
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


I have both and would go with the 180 I have had it for many years and enjoy both but feel the 180L is better and prefer the FL.


May 22, 2012 at 02:22 AM
M Vers
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


Just to back what I said earlier, here is a good read.


May 22, 2012 at 02:41 AM
jamato8
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


Strange, the person doing the review says they are the same but in looking at the comparison 180's, the Canon looks sharper to me. A little better contras and sharper edges. Having used it for scientific work, I have found nothing better.


May 22, 2012 at 05:11 AM
M Vers
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


jamato8 wrote:
Strange, the person doing the review says they are the same but in looking at the comparison 180's, the Canon looks sharper to me. A little better contras and sharper edges. Having used it for scientific work, I have found nothing better.


Even stranger, it looks like the Sigma is sharper to me. Either way, sharpness, especially when stopped down, is a complete non-issue between both lenses. Have you tried the Sigma?



May 22, 2012 at 06:18 PM
geniousc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


I had the Canon 180 for a couple years, I loved the OOF backround and sharpness starting at about F4.5. It is not super sharp at full aperture, at least mine wasn't What I didn't like most was the slop in the focus ring when using MF, you end up turning the focusing ring back and forth until you get it. I didn't find the focus to be slow, a common complaint, providing you are close to being in focus already. If you are not it is annoying.
I ended up selling it and buying a Sigma 150 2.8 OS which beats the Canon 180 in every way except FL. It is fully usable at 2.8 actually brilliant, peaking out at about F4. The manual focusing is perfect, no slop plus it's stabilized. Photozone highly recommends it but does note that the Bokeh could be better. I would agree but it is also good enough that I have no complaints. It has become my favorite macro in a matter of days. It also takes all of the Canon made converters. Good luck with your decision.

gene



May 22, 2012 at 11:37 PM
jamato8
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


For the Sigma 150 2.8, how much does the IS get you?


May 23, 2012 at 05:31 AM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 100 2.8L IS v 180 3.5L for macro work


Sjjindra wrote:
How well does the 70-200 IS II work for macro (with tubes)? Does the IS still help much?

When I go out on my kayak, primarilly for birds, I usually only carry one lens, almost always the 70-200 and a 1.4 extender that I will add occasionally. I have the 100L 2.8 and there are times I wish I had it with me. I wouldn't mind purchasing a set of extension tubes and carrying those with me as well, if it would be effective for an occasional macro.

Thanks


Zooms are difficult to use with tubes because the magnification changes pretty radically when zooming. It can be done, but you'll end up using the zoom more like a prime.

For the occasional macro shot in the field, I can strongly recommend the Canon 500D for use on the 70-200. Great flexibility and excellent image quality for three dimensional subjects. No light loss, and obviously you can also add extenders.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A001_77mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

To do any true flat-field work you would want a true macro lens.



May 23, 2012 at 05:36 AM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password