danski0224 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Pedro Claro wrote:
Yes.
There are, essentially, two drawbacks:
1 - The longer the lens, the harder it is to keep steady - that's common sense, but in macro/close-up the problem can easily be multiplied by 2 or 3. Even the natural movements of your body as you breathe are enough to compromise focusing (and forget AF, no macro lens is fast enough to focus to allow Ai-servo AF). It's very, very tiresome to handhold a reasonably heavy lens, having to compensate for the small movements of the camera. This problem is much less pronounced on a ~100mm lens and the new versions of macros (100L IS, Tamron 90 VC, Sigma 105 OS) benefit a lot from stabilization.
2 - A longer working distance is not always desirable. Sometimes, in the field, there are situations where you will not be able to put a camera and a huge 180mm macro lens far enough to focus. It depends a lot on what and where you shoot, but it happened to me occasionally when taking pictures of mushrooms that I found among bushes.
Not exactly a drawback, but another limitation, is the reduced efficiency when using tubes on such a lens. For instance, using all three Kenko tubes (12+20+36mm) on my Zeiss 100 I can get 1.16x (native 0.5x), and on my 100L (native 1x) I can get 2x. On a 180mm lens it should get you only about 1.4x (native 1x), the same you can get with a 1.4x teleconverter. This could be important if you need to go beyond 1x frequently.
IMHO, a 180 macro lens is somewhat cumbersome and should be, mainly, a tripod mounted lens. A ~100mm macro lens is a much more handholdable and manageable lens. If you do your homework and learn something about butterflies, you won't need to be too far away from them to get their picture. The same for other insects and arachnids.
...Show more →
Thanks for the responses.
For point 1- yes, it can be difficult to hold steady and breathing *will* mess up your focus. While the tendency is less with the 100mm macro, it is still there.
For point 2- interesting. I have not yet run into a situation where the 180mm could not be focused because it was too close and moving away a bit was not possible. I have wished for a swivel screen, though.
I have run into situations where the 180 was simply too much lens and the 100 or 150 provided better framing. I guess it depends on what you are taking pictures of- I doubt the 180 would ever be "too much" if your primary focus was bugs and other (assumed) small objects. Other things like flowers, the 180 can be too much.
The Sigma 150 macro is my favorite- a little more than the 100 and a little less than the 180. I have noticed that the AF on the Sigma isn't quite equal to Canon, and that is my only small complaint.
Good info on the extension tubes, I have not explored those enough for macro, but I have used them to shorten MFD on a Nikon DC 105.
Almost all of my pictures are done either handheld or from a monopod. I have been forcing myself to use the tripod more often, and using the Nikon 105 and live view has sorta forced that. I do wish that that lens had a collar.
I do find the monopod with a swivel head to be almost invaluable because of the additional support for handheld shots. 100% handheld (no monopod or other type of rest) with either the Canon 180 or Sigma 150 is challenging due to the weight and length of the lenses, and I do not consider myself strength challenged.
Edit to add: Handheld with a 1D series body is much easier for me than with the 5 series. Holding onto the camera is much easier, and the 1D "grip" doesn't loosen or flex..
Edited on Nov 30, 2014 at 09:04 AM · View previous versions
|