Image & Video Galleries > Lens Gallery

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

(1/7) > >>

Goincarcrazy:
Although one of the slowest focusing lenses I've owned, it is also the sharpest.  For macro at a distance, there is none better than the 180mm macro.

acoll123:

--- Quote from: Goincarcrazy on January 03, 2011, 09:29:09 AM ---Although one of the slowest focusing lenses I've owned, it is also the sharpest.  For macro at a distance, there is none better than the 180mm macro.

--- End quote ---

I was thinking about getting a macro lens and have been reading about the new 100 / 2.8 with IS. Have you used that one? Thoughts about the difference between the two lenses? I don't have any particular use for macro - just a new area of interest for me.

Goincarcrazy:
I have used it, but honestly, I think the 180mm is sharper, and the 100L doesn't have enough of an increase in image quality from the regular 100mm 2.8 USM to warrant an upgrade (my opinion only).  Sure the IS would be nice, but I've done without for a while now and will probably continue to do so.  Plus, if you plan on using one of Canon's macro flashes with the 100L, you'll have to get the 67c adapter where as the flashes fit right onto the 100mm 2.8 USM. Both of those are in a totally different league than the 180 though due to the major difference in focal length, etc.

BL:
I would agree that the 100 L is not worth upgrading from the non L, unless you need IS.  I own the L and compared it extensively with my friends non L version.  In regards to image quality, it's practically negligible, but since i do quite a bit of macro handheld for moving subjects, i rely on mobility and speedlites to capture the image.

Like the TC states, the 100 and the 180 are completely different beasts.  If you need the reach, get the 180.  If you need mobility, can't use a tripod and need to shoot handheld, get the 100.

mackguyver:
Rented one for fun earlier this year:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page