G
Goincarcrazy
Guest
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.
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
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 said:
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.
Upvote
0
G
Goincarcrazy
Guest
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
A question about the 180L. I frequent the used camera gear sites frequently (B&H for example) and the lens I see most for sale in the used section is the 180L. Anyone have any thoughts as to why this might be?
A question about the 180L. I frequent the used camera gear sites frequently (B&H for example) and the lens I see most for sale in the used section is the 180L. Anyone have any thoughts as to why this might be?
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
+1
I owned the regular 100mm Macro and the L (sold both) and thought the regular was sharper. I salivate at the thought of getting the 180mm though, but the price is a bit steep. The bokeh on it is just gorgeous.
Goincarcrazy said:
+1
I owned the regular 100mm Macro and the L (sold both) and thought the regular was sharper. I salivate at the thought of getting the 180mm though, but the price is a bit steep. The bokeh on it is just gorgeous.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
$1200-1400 is a lot of money to be tied up in a specialty lens if one is not doing macro all the time.
infilm said:
$1200-1400 is a lot of money to be tied up in a specialty lens if one is not doing macro all the time.
Upvote
0
I
illyusha
Guest
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
I also owned 100L, then got myself a 180L, and sold the 100L right away.
IS is surely nice to have, and i'm sure they will release the 180L IS version eventually, but at this point I consider 180 so much more my type of lens due to a special bokeh (looks somewhat old-school to me), reach that you need for macro work (insects tend to escape when approached with shorter focal lengths), and it can also serve as a long portrait lens, more so than 100L due to the fact that there are many other alternatives in that range (85L, 100/2, 135L etc).
I also owned 100L, then got myself a 180L, and sold the 100L right away.
IS is surely nice to have, and i'm sure they will release the 180L IS version eventually, but at this point I consider 180 so much more my type of lens due to a special bokeh (looks somewhat old-school to me), reach that you need for macro work (insects tend to escape when approached with shorter focal lengths), and it can also serve as a long portrait lens, more so than 100L due to the fact that there are many other alternatives in that range (85L, 100/2, 135L etc).
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
I am glad I am not the only one that has thought of ditching the 100L for the non-IS 180mm... Fully agree, 100mm is a bit short for insect shots... either I scare them or they scare me at 2 feet.
now if I can get a nice cheap, and sharp used 180mm
illyusha said:
I am glad I am not the only one that has thought of ditching the 100L for the non-IS 180mm... Fully agree, 100mm is a bit short for insect shots... either I scare them or they scare me at 2 feet.
now if I can get a nice cheap, and sharp used 180mm
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
Thats not too bad, what I was thinking is Near MINT used for $950 (good copy... if it matters)
infilm said:
Thats not too bad, what I was thinking is Near MINT used for $950 (good copy... if it matters)
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
Depends on the insect. I've gotten some nice insect shots with the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x, and the working distance on that lens is between 1.6-4 inches, depending on magnification (and since you can't go below 1x due to the lack of infinity focus, 4" is the longest working distance possible!).
I have seen a 180mm f/3.5L Macro pop up on my local Craigslist in the $950-1000 range a few times, as recently as a month ago.
K-amps said:100mm is a bit short for insect shots... either I scare them or they scare me at 2 feet.
now if I can get a nice cheap, and sharp used 180mm
Depends on the insect. I've gotten some nice insect shots with the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x, and the working distance on that lens is between 1.6-4 inches, depending on magnification (and since you can't go below 1x due to the lack of infinity focus, 4" is the longest working distance possible!).
I have seen a 180mm f/3.5L Macro pop up on my local Craigslist in the $950-1000 range a few times, as recently as a month ago.
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
Were you the guy that shared a pic of the pink flower / trident stamen with the MPE-65? It was gorgeous. What do you use for illumination?
neuroanatomist said:K-amps said:100mm is a bit short for insect shots... either I scare them or they scare me at 2 feet.
now if I can get a nice cheap, and sharp used 180mm
Depends on the insect. I've gotten some nice insect shots with the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x, and the working distance on that lens is between 1.6-4 inches, depending on magnification (and since you can't go below 1x due to the lack of infinity focus, 4" is the longest working distance possible!).
I have seen a 180mm f/3.5L Macro pop up on my local Craigslist in the $950-1000 range a few times, as recently as a month ago.
Were you the guy that shared a pic of the pink flower / trident stamen with the MPE-65? It was gorgeous. What do you use for illumination?
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
This one? (small size since this is not the MP-E 65mm thread)
If so, yes, that's me...and thanks! Lighting was with the MT-24EX Twin Lite (with StoFens on the flashheads).
K-amps said:
This one? (small size since this is not the MP-E 65mm thread)
If so, yes, that's me...and thanks! Lighting was with the MT-24EX Twin Lite (with StoFens on the flashheads).
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
Yep thats the one! I had it as my desktop background for a few days as I watched the dazzle of nature... of course the dazzle of the photographer as well
Neuro... I don't mean to pry.. but you have awesome gear... are you a pro, or just are lucky enough to have spare cash?
neuroanatomist said:K-amps said:
This one? (small size since this is not the MP-E 65mm thread)
If so, yes, that's me...and thanks! Lighting was with the MT-24EX Twin Lite (with StoFens on the flashheads).
Yep
thats the one! I had it as my desktop background for a few days as I watched the dazzle of nature... of course the dazzle of the photographer as well Neuro... I don't mean to pry.. but you have awesome gear... are you a pro, or just are lucky enough to have spare cash?
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
Photography is just a hobby, but I happen to have a decent budget for gear, mostly from consulting work that I do outside of my day job (I don't spend a lot of time at it, but $300/hr adds up ).
K-amps said:
Photography is just a hobby, but I happen to have a decent budget for gear, mostly from consulting work that I do outside of my day job (I don't spend a lot of time at it, but $300/hr adds up
).
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
Nice! I am glad that someone who knows what he is doing and has a passion, is not constrained by other things.
Have you compared the 180mm to the 100mm L? What do you think are the pros/ cons of each? (IQ wise) I know the 180 weights a bit....
neuroanatomist said:K-amps said:
Photography is just a hobby, but I happen to have a decent budget for gear, mostly from consulting work that I do outside of my day job (I don't spend a lot of time at it, but $300/hr adds up
Nice! I am glad that someone who knows what he is doing and has a passion, is not constrained by other things.
Have you compared the 180mm to the 100mm L? What do you think are the pros/ cons of each? (IQ wise) I know the 180 weights a bit....
Upvote
0
Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
I've never shot with the 180L, but from what I've seen/read, I don't there's a significant IQ difference. I think the main difference is that the 180L provides an extra 4.5" of working distance, with the trade-off being that the 180L is more expensive and larger/heavier.
For non-macro uses, the 100L is probably superior - it's 2/3 stop faster, has IS, and faster AF than the 180L (which is claimed to be amont the slowest of all Canon lenses). So, the 100L can double as a decent short tele lens for portraits, but the 180L does a fairly bad job as a tele lens.
K-amps said:
I've never shot with the 180L, but from what I've seen/read, I don't there's a significant IQ difference. I think the main difference is that the 180L provides an extra 4.5" of working distance, with the trade-off being that the 180L is more expensive and larger/heavier.
For non-macro uses, the 100L is probably superior - it's 2/3 stop faster, has IS, and faster AF than the 180L (which is claimed to be amont the slowest of all Canon lenses). So, the 100L can double as a decent short tele lens for portraits, but the 180L does a fairly bad job as a tele lens.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
