Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

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

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2015 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L

  
 
chasphoto2015
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Hello members:
OK, really appreciate all the comments on my previous post today asking advice comparing the 100 L vs. 100 macro, both by Canon. I was leaning towards the 100 L version, now after reading the Ken Rockwell post on Macro Photography another lens comes up. Ken states the 180 L lens is the best of the bunch. What are your thoughts comparing the 100 L vs. 180 L ? I plan on using my 70 D, 1 DS mark 1 & 2 bodies and have a YongNuo YN 14 EX ring light. I am a newbie but really enjoy looking at the Macro forum, especially the bugs and small creatures. Only want to buy one Macro lens and don't want to make a mistake. Thanks again !



Mar 18, 2015 at 04:15 PM
dehowie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


I have both.
In the field no tripod the keeper rate of the 100 is better obviously.
I prefer the look of the 180 mm though the FOV particularly.
If you have a steady hand it isn't as big an issue particularly in decent light.
I have had the 100 for 5 years and still havnt sold the 180 if that means anything.



Mar 18, 2015 at 04:27 PM
mogud
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


I have both as well as the Zeiss 100/2 MP. The 180 seems to be better suited as a tripod macro lens. The 100L can be handheld better because of it's lighter weight and excellent IS. The 180 also focuses slower than the 100L and has no IS.

The biggest reason why I use the 180 is because of it's MFD. The 100L has a MFD of about 10-12 inches whereas rthe 180 is approx. 19 to 20 Inches. Because you don't have to get so close to the subject to achieve 1:1, macro flashes like the Canon twin light seem to work better with the 180mm. I also find the bokeh better with the 180mm than the 100L.

Since getting the 180, my 100L sits in my bag as I'm using my Zeiss 100/2 and the Canon 180mm more. One other thing to note, the 100L can be used for other types of photography other than Macro. The 180 tends to be designated just a macro lens because It's heavier and slow focus. Both lenses are equally very sharp.

Good luck deciding on a macro lens.



Mar 18, 2015 at 05:14 PM
Lauchlan Toal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


The Sigma 180mm f2.8, as far as I know, is a better lens than Canon's 180mm. Faster, stabilized, and more modern optics. Sigma's 150mm f2.8 is also a good compromise between size and focal length.

If you want a lens for strictly insects, I'd go for a 180mm. The extra working distance is useful for skittish critters, and you have more room to employ elaborate flash set-ups.

If you want to have a walk-around kind of lens as well, the 100mm is more useful, in many cases. Also, if you want to go beyond 1:1 macro, extension tubes will be more effective on a 100mm than a 180mm. However, a 180mm will be better for general wildlife, and quite good even for birds with a teleconverter. (Another advantage for the Sigma 180mm, you can use a 2x TC and still have a very usable aperture for wildlife.) The 180mm also makes a decent sports lens, if you're into that. But the 100mm is probably better for non-headshot portraits.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts. I would give serious consideration to Sigma's 150mm and 180mm, unless you need weather-sealing.



Mar 18, 2015 at 05:42 PM
danski0224
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


chasphoto2015 wrote:
What are your thoughts comparing the 100 L vs. 180 L ? I plan on using my 70 D, 1 DS mark 1 & 2 bodies and have a YongNuo YN 14 EX ring light. I am a newbie but really enjoy looking at the Macro forum, especially the bugs and small creatures. Only want to buy one Macro lens and don't want to make a mistake. Thanks again !


Will you use autofocus or manual focus some of the time?

The focus throw on the Canon 180 is about 2x as long as the Canon 100- that will make it much easier to MF an AF lens if you want.

Another thing with the more current Canon cameras is which AF points each lens gets to use. You may want to look up Lens Groups in the 70D manual- not sure if it will matter with the 1DsI & II.

It is probably safe to assume that the f/2.8 lens(es) will initially focus lock better/faster than the f/3.5 lens, plus you have the longer focus throw on the Canon 180 that will add time when the lens is in AF mode, so use the distance switch.

The latest version of the Sigma 150 gets very good reviews and it is f/2.8 and it has OS. Some find the 150mm length better than 180mm. There are lots of posts on the web about Sigma focus issues on Canon bodies but not too many complaints about the macro lenses. The latest version has APO in the model designation.

The Sigma 150 or 180 f/2.8 lenses will be apprecaibly heavier than the Canon 180.

If you want to try manual focus, the Mamiya 120mm f/4 macro "A" version and a Mamiya 645 to EOS adapter with a focus confirmation chip (<< check to make sure that the chip works with your camera model- some don't) will provide great results for much less than any of the lenses mentioned here. That lens is also pretty lightweight and has great bokeh.


Edited on Mar 18, 2015 at 06:36 PM · View previous versions



Mar 18, 2015 at 06:25 PM
garydavidjones
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Had old Sigma 180 macro, 100 L macro, and 180 L macro. Used for photographing flowers and certain art objects in fine arts museums. 180L macro is definitely superior for those uses. Allows closer photographing with less bending or kneeling to get closer to subject.
Have learned to hold steady so I do not need to use tripod. In low light the 180L works better with Canon 6D. Sold the sigma and 100 L macro long ago. In the better light use my trust 5D2.



Mar 18, 2015 at 06:31 PM
jaredmizanin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


How is the Canon 180 better than the old Sigma 180? I have the latter and if a good deal pops up I just might bite.

garydavidjones wrote:
Had old Sigma 180 macro, 100 L macro, and 180 L macro. Used for photographing flowers and certain art objects in fine arts museums. 180L macro is definitely superior for those uses. Allows closer photographing with less bending or kneeling to get closer to subject.
Have learned to hold steady so I do not need to use tripod. In low light the 180L works better with Canon 6D. Sold the sigma and 100 L macro long ago. In the better light use my trust 5D2.




Mar 18, 2015 at 07:07 PM
garydavidjones
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Have had number of Sigma for Canon mount lens which did not work well until Sigma 50 mm art lens. Just presumed Canon 180 L would be better than old Sigma 180 macro


Mar 18, 2015 at 07:44 PM
melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Like another poster above I have both the Canon 180mm f/3.5 L and the Zeiss 100mm f2. I use both handheld and both on the tripod, depending on the situation. The 180 is a 1 kg lens, which may be a problem for some people.

I like and use them both, in different situations. They are both very good lenses.

chasphoto2015 wrote:
I was leaning towards the 100 L version, now after reading the Ken Rockwell post on Macro Photography another lens comes up. Ken states the 180 L lens is the best of the bunch. What are your thoughts comparing the 100 L vs. 180 L?


I noticed his comments a while ago, and if I remember correctly they were specific to the product photography he does. I have to say that bedroom he shoots in must be huge, because the 180 is too long in the room I use. When I set up to shoot a bunch of lenses and camera equipment to sell on eBay - exactly what his macro photography is - I started with the 180 because it has a tripod ring and the Zeiss 100 doesn't. I had to switch to the Zeiss because the working distance of the 180 would have put me either inside the piano or through the ceiling.

Insect photography is a different thing. I don't have much experience with that, but the few shots I did make were with the 180.

Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 07:20 AM · View previous versions



Mar 19, 2015 at 02:06 AM
kabraxcis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


#1 rule: never believe what Ken Rockwell says.


Mar 19, 2015 at 02:37 AM
danski0224
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


kabraxcis wrote:
#1 rule: never believe what Ken Rockwell says.


He gets bashed a lot, but if you read through what he posts, there are pieces of useful information.



Mar 19, 2015 at 04:36 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


kabraxcis wrote:
#1 rule: never believe what Ken Rockwell says.


Where did you get that idea from ? You know the man ? Do you follow his blog ?



Mar 19, 2015 at 05:35 AM
nrferguson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


I also have both. I would agree that the 180 seems to be better suited as a tripod macro lens as it is quite heavy to handhold. The 100L can be handheld better because of it's lighter weight and excellent IS. The 180 also focuses slower than the 100L and has no IS.

One other thing to note, the 100L can be used for other types of photography other than Macro. The 180 tends to be designated just a macro lens because It's heavier and slow focus. Both lenses are equally very sharp.
Niall



Mar 19, 2015 at 07:21 AM
Guest

Guest
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Ken Rockwell is a dirty word here, it seems. I have to agree that sometimes he gets obnoxiously opinionated and insulting, but most of the times, his reviews are an interesting read, at least.


Mar 19, 2015 at 09:21 AM
Lauchlan Toal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Snopchenko wrote:
Ken Rockwell is a dirty word here, it seems. I have to agree that sometimes he gets obnoxiously opinionated and insulting, but most of the times, his reviews are an interesting read, at least.


The only problem is that it's hard for you to tell fact from fiction if he's talking about relatively unknown gear. Somewhere in his gigantic "about me" type page he admits that the site is made for humour and his entertainment, and some information is made up. Looking through some of his posts, it's easy to tell when he's pulling your leg. Others, who knows...



Mar 19, 2015 at 12:28 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


kabraxcis wrote:
#1 rule: never believe what Ken Rockwell says.


PetKal wrote:
Where did you get that idea from ? You know the man ? Do you follow his blog ?


Every lens is 'sharp' to KR. I still read his stuff from time to time, and there is plenty of useful information to be found there, but none without a grain of salt .



Mar 19, 2015 at 12:58 PM
Guest

Guest
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Lauchlan Toal wrote:
The only problem is that it's hard for you to tell fact from fiction if he's talking about relatively unknown gear. Somewhere in his gigantic "about me" type page he admits that the site is made for humour and his entertainment, and some information is made up. Looking through some of his posts, it's easy to tell when he's pulling your leg. Others, who knows...

Yeah, like when he trash talks Sigma and Tamron all the time. Though his review of 150-600 was pretty surprising - (almost) no unwarranted abuse like the one to which he subjected the Sigma 35/1.4 (wholly unexplained).



Mar 20, 2015 at 06:19 AM
mogud
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Snopchenko wrote:
Yeah, like when he trash talks Sigma and Tamron all the time. Though his review of 150-600 was pretty surprising - (almost) no unwarranted abuse like the one to which he subjected the Sigma 35/1.4 (wholly unexplained).


I read his review of the 35A and I don't have any problem with his conclusions about the lens. When the 35A works, it's a nice lens. Color rendition seems a little too red for me. Regardless, if I was a paid photographer, all the Sigma Art lenses would not be in my bag and used for paid work. AF is inconsistent and I couldn't take the chance the lens would not produce.



Mar 20, 2015 at 07:34 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


If I were serious about macro, and looking outside the specialised Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1–5x Macro lens - and for a longer focal length - I'd not hesitate to buy the EF 180mm f3.5L.

However, the 100 f2.8L IS (or non-IS) might serve you better should you interest in macro wane.

180mm f3.5L if you are committed*.

100mm if you'll have use for a 100mm as a walkaround lens#.

*Tripod, lights, rails, etc.

#People snaps. Fast, handheld portraits. Market shots of produce.



Mar 20, 2015 at 07:41 AM
chasphoto2015
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon 100 L vs. Canon 180 f3.5 L


Thanks members for all the advice. I was going to buy the 100 L and then a non L model popped up at a super reasonable price so will try that one first. Really appreciate all the responses.


Mar 20, 2015 at 11:40 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.