 |
|
|
Aberdeen Photo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3812
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,164.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great macro with wonderful sharpness and color
|
|
Cons:
|
Not so quick to focus, but hey it is a macro and mf is what I normally use
|
|
|
Great macro and a step up from the 100 2.8 from Canon. I really enjoy using this for product work as well as macro work. It is a bit slow to focus, but it is a macro and has great sharpness, color, saturation and fore and background blur. It is simply the best macro which I have used.
It is wonderful for small product work and I love this lens for what it is. The results can be stunning! Excellent build and I prefer the working distance esp w/ ff. If you want the best in a macro, this is it.
|
|
 Jul 23, 2007
|
|
Tony Rogers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 299
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent image quality, ability to get 1:1 macro at a greater distance, usable as a 180mm prime telephoto
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a lightweight lens, tripod almost a necessity for macro shots, some difficulty finding a suitable tripod head when used with a battery grip or a 1D series body - the body interferes with many heads (eg: Manfrotto 410 geared head) - I'd rather the tripod collar lifted the lens higher.
|
|
|
This lens is awesomely sharp, as all good (true) macro lenses are. It can be used for things other than straight macro shots; it makes an interesting lens for portraits, but it can be cruel, because it shows every slight imperfection in the skin.
I am not using my 100mm Macro lens any more.
|
|
|
Jul 9, 2007
|
|
Fetor
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jun 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,196.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great ergonomics, very similar to the 70-200 2.8L
sturdy build, i wouldn't expect anything less from a L series lens
|
|
Cons:
|
72mm diameter :(
|
|
awesome lens, well worth the money, tripod collar fits 70-200 2.8 lens as well. weight not a problem, unless your a weak pansy
sample photo i took
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/1605/img8105sk8.jpg
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007
|
|
Hacker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 92
|
|
Review Date: Apr 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack sharp, IF, smooth focusing and solidly built.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, needs 72C to mate with the MT-24EX and expensive.
|
|
|
You will not regret if you decide to get this lens.
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2007
|
|
ChillAloha
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 529
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp, excelent build quality, good color and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF at macro distances (it's fine at non-macro distances and set to focus that way).
|
|
|
This lens is really sharp. It's easy to get good images of things that don't want me all that close and the ability to use extenders and extension tubes gives this lens a lot of versatility and power.
I don't really care about auto focus when I'm doing macro work and it is reasonably fast when set to distant focus and is being used as a telephoto - so I have no reason to lower its score on that count.
When this is set up with flash adaptors, flashes, extension tubes, and tele-converters, it can get a bit heavy, and it's not light to start with, but that's all part of the game. If it moves slowly, a tripod is a nice respite, but for timid fast moving targets... well, it's a bit of a workout.
Gorgeous, crisp, colorful images out of this. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006
|
|
2in3
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
everything of a macro lens dream
|
|
Cons:
|
not f2.8
|
|
..this is the first canon lenses came with my first canon dslr, 5d..i was very impressed by the cool metal tube of the lens when i touched it for the first time, and it soon became my favorite lens with no regret to skip 100 macro...
..the wide manual focus ring make it very precise when focusing..the nice creamy bokeh proved there are really somethings photoshop can't do..this lens narrowed my vision but broadened my world with inspirations...
..some people complain about the weight, non-IS and slow AF (actually it's pretty fast when switch to 1.5m to infinity)..isn't this lens supposed to be mounted on tripod, manual focusing and shutter released by remote control with mirror locked up?..then why should we pay extra money for IS and faster AF instead of a sturdy gitzo?...
..some sample pix are here:
www.flickr.com/photos/2in3/sets/
|
|
|
Sep 6, 2006
|
|
luke.price
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 41
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, handling, image quality, ability to use TC's, reasonable fast AF when used in the >1.5m range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Black not White body, not weather sealed fully
|
|
I love this lens, this is the kind of lens that makes you actually want to try different types of photograhy than you would otherwise. I hate spiders and would normally kill them on sight. But now I just chase them around the house with this lens taking their portraits. Safe in the knowledge that I have a good working distance 
I have also been using this lens as a makeshift telephoto for sporting events such as the US GP and the Gold Cup power boat racing here in Detroit. Even used with a 1.4TC it takes very sharp images with great contrast and saturation. The only problem I have found is that it gets very hot during the course of a day shooting. Its large enough that it warrants the white coating I think.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006
|
|
coachjohn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 79
|
|
Review Date: Jun 13, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Much better focus than original; very sharp, excellent color rendition; great bokeh; excellent build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF
|
|
|
A while back I posted a review on the 180mm f/35. macro that I later got taken to task for. I'm updating my review NOT because of the "worthless" comment, but because of now owning a different copy of the lens. After using the used copy I had purchased for sometime, I ended up returning the copy and buying a new 180mm; the difference and been pronounced. Would I rate it a 10 now? No..it's not the "perfect" lens and a 10 is perfection...but it's very, very close. A 9.5 or 9.8...fast becoming one of my favorites lenses to shoot with.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006
|
|
cjjmst
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 475
|
|
Review Date: Jun 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Built. Sharpness. Sharpness. Sharpness. Compatibility with TCs. Internal focus. Collar. Working distance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight.
|
|
|
I've been so happy for so many years with my 100 macro thay I long didn't feel any need for this one. Eventually I got one used, compulsively I would say.
But Oh my God! What a lens!
This is a real winner.
For macro of course, the working distance is simply great. Never dreamed before of making macro so comfortable.
Compatibility with Tcs. With the x1.4 is excellent (even x2 but I don't recommend it except when high IQ is not the point). With TC and tubes together, it still works fine (on a good tripod), you then almost have a microscope!!...
Internal focus is a real plus. The lens has a constant length and can't be suspected to suck any dust in.
I also often use it for portraits. Wide open, the sharpness is impressive and you get a dreamy bokeh.
Built like weaponery, it's heavy though and not so easy to shoot handheld (I almost never...).
The price? Yes, it's not a cheap lens, but when you have it in hands, you know that you are not holding a cheap lens...
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2006
|
|
Chris Schlaf
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2409
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extemley sharp very nice bokeh and built like a tank
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF
|
|
|
I purchased this about 3 years ago and decided to sell it after about a year and trying a few other macro lenses I repurchased this and wont be selling this one anytime soon (ever).I use the 1x4 and the 2x extender on this lens and the quality has been outstanding.And for me the AF is pretty slow but I use the MF most of the time so it doesnt matter to me.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2006
|
|
lowbone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 635
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A very high quality macro lens with excellent build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I already owned a Sigma 180mm f 3.5 macro lens and was fairly pleased with it. I reluctantly bought the Canon 180 macro because of reports that the Sigma lens was just as good. Believe me, it is not. The Canon 180 macro produces sharper photos with better color. You do get what you pay for. If you have the money get the Canon.
|
|
|
May 23, 2006
|
|
stelin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
max aperture -- f2.8 or wider would be nice to make manual focussing easier
|
|
|
Incredibly sharp, and works very well with the 1.4x Canon extender or extension tubes to increase the magnification beyond 1:1.
I find the AF obviously slower than my zooms, but not horrendous as some would have you believe. The internal focussing is a boon as is the length over my previous 105mm Sigma. -- I prefer to be further back from things with stings!!
|
|
|
May 20, 2006
|
|
johnastovall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1332
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,264.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great color and so sharp it'll make your eyes bleed. Very glad I got it.
|
|
Cons:
|
Non but be prepared to accept it on it's terms and do the work it demands.
|
|
|
I debate about this L lense and the cheaper 100 or a Tarmon 180 cheaper still. I'm very glad I paid what I did. In just a morning of work it shows it's ever thing one expects from a Canon L lense. Some people complain about the AF speed. I don't expect to use AF that much with a macro and it has silk smooth manual focus. I only have on question for Canon and it's not about the lens, "Where's the MLU button on the 5D!" This lens demands such a feature on the camera body. Also a good heavy tripod is a must.
|
|
|
May 20, 2006
|
|
DigitalDreamer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 151
|
|
Review Date: Apr 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,129.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
coachjohn if it is everything you described then why a rating of 9? It is reviews like this that make people think of them as worthless.
My review of this lens is simply outstanding if you know how to use a Macro lens. As ALL Macro lenses it does focus slow, but not hindering at all. How ever when put into 1.4 to infinity it can be used as a very nice tele as well and focus locks on fast and holds.
This lens used on my 1dsmkII and my 5D has produced some terriffic portrait shots as well.
I have the Sigma 150 Macro as well which is also another great lens for the money, if money is an objective then go for the Sigma 150 macro, if not get the Canon 180 macro. The big difference between these two lenses to me is color, the canon has much more true color and is sharper, but by a very small amount, and not noticable at all on prints up to A3.
By far the sharpest lens in my Canon lineup!
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
EF 135mm f/2L USM
EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM (2nd Sharpest)
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006
|
|
coachjohn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 79
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,049.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Working distance in macro mode; sharpness, contrast, color...did I mention sharpness?; build-quality
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is slow..slower than I expected..not an issue when shooting macro, could be if used as a medium telephoto
|
|
|
I used the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro for three years before lucking into this used. My 100mm hasn't been on my camera since, and I will probably end up selling it. I love the working distance, focus is slow but locks on very nicely, color, contrast, bokeh is incredible. I'm used to lugging around the 100-400 and 70-200 f/2.8, so weight is really not an issue; in fact, I was surprised after hearing so many complain about the size and weight...very usable, well balance lens. AF is very slow...slowest of any lens I own. Incredibly sharp...without a doubt the sharpest lens in my bag. Well worth the $$.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2006
|
|
xmattkx
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4884
|
|
Review Date: Feb 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
What else matters?- Image quality is unbelievable! Colors/contrast, feel (built like a tank) Wonderful Bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
Price- but you get what you pay for...
|
|
|
Much has been said about this lens both positive and negative-
I have used the following macros:
Sigma:
50 / 105 / 150
Canon:
50 / 100 / 180
Tamron:
90
This lens has the most beautiful results of all of them, focus is spot-on, even to 100% the pics are sharp and contrasty.
There is much said about the autofocus speed on this, but I have to disagree with many of those that have complained, if you turn the focus limiter on, focus is fast and accurate.
I also have to disagree with those that complain about shot at infinity focus, I have found it to be pretty sharp, even wide open-
All-in-all this is expensive and heavy, but the image is produces are second to none!
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
51
|
164966
|
May 1, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
96% of reviewers
|
$1,218.60
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.88
|
8.50
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
