Canon's 100mm Macro and 180mm Macro

[christopher_diao1]

I have the Canon 100mm Macro.

 

Does anyone have 180mm in addition to 100mm? What's your

experience? What's your need in 180mm that can't fulfilled by 100mm?

[gregory_nicholson]

I have neither but I can add that the EF 100mm lens is an internal focusing lens so at 1:1 it is actually a 70mm macro lens. I have the FD 200mm macro lens with a similar configuration and its focal length at 1:1 is actually 140mm.

 

Both lenses benefit from the use of a teleconverter. Not only do you gain focal length or subject to camera distance but added depth of field is possible from the light loss of the converter. The longer macro lenses also work better for me because I prefer a manual flash. With internal focusing lenses light loss is minimized compared to a standard helicoid focusing lens with extension. This lower light loss requires a very small aperture for a correct exposure or moving the flash back. The longer lens is farther away so with my 200mm macro and a 155A (GN 50) exposure starts at f/11 which is optimum.

 

Probably not your concern with an EOS camera and TTL flash, I guess I'm still doing it the hard way, without automation.

 

Also the longer focal length separates you from a more standard macro photo in perspective. As an example your background will be larger or more stacked. Like a landscape photo using a telephoto lens when distant mountains are stacked over a village or lodge but on a macro scale.

 

Maybe you could add a teleconverter to see if you like a longer macro lens or if the added length is problematic in terms of stability or proper flash exposure.

[mike_broderick]

If you are shooting closeups of insects or something that would take exception to you poking a big lens at it, the extra working distance the 180 gives is useful. Every inch counts in these situations!

 

Admittedly, the Canon 180mm is priced as though they are extremely proud of it, and it may not be worth it for many users.

[kferris575]

Christopher,

 

I have both the 100mm and 180mm macro lenses. I bought the 180mm first because I do alot of insect stuff and the extra working distance is very helpful. When I used manual focus cameras, I had a 100mm macro and I always wished I had a little more reach. That's why I got the 180mm when I switched to auto focus.

 

However, when trying to photograph certain things, the extra working distance was a problem. For example, shooting directly on the ground. Somtimes I had to stand on a step ladder to get the desired composition.

 

I also do alot of traveling and backpacking. The 180mm was too big for some of these trecks. I recently picked up the 100mm for the times I need to travel light, and when I want to do some close up photography on non-insect subjects.

 

Both lenses are very sharp. The 180mm is slower to focus than the 100mm. I like both of them, but I use them for differnet subjects. If you are shooting digital with a crop factor, the 100mm may be more like the 180mm on a film body.

 

If you are using the 100mm and you often feel you need some additional reach, the 180mm will be very helpful (or maybe a digital body with a crop factor). If you can photograph most of your subjects with the 100mm and you don't need the reach, stay with the 100mm.

 

If you do decide to get the 180mm, you may want to also hold onto that 100mm also (if it is economically feasible).

 

I hope this helps.

 

Kevin

[william_hahn1]

I also have both lenses, and I agree completely with what Kevin said.

The 180mm lens has allowed me to get a few pictures I otherwise couldn't

have obtained, but I've taken many more good shots with the 100mm lens, which is much more convenient to use.

[davidroossien]

If you shoot outdoor subjects and are concerned with background distractions then the 180mm with its narrow angle of view is a better choice. I frequently use it with a 1.4 extender to further narrow the angle of view and select the best possible background available in a scene. Since the background is smaller, it also makes it easier to insert your own background in the scene.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> All macro lenses are <a href="http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html">optically excellent</a>. However, if I were in the market for a dedicated macro lens, I'd get the Tamron 180/3.5 for it's build and optical quality, for it's long working distance (the longest of <b>all</b> lenses), for it's reasonable price (only 200$ more than the Canon 100/2.8 macro USM), for it's <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#rearinternal">IF</a> and for <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">Tamron's excellent compatibility reputation</a>. </P>

 

<P>HTH.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[david_haynes]

I have the Canon 100 and 180. When I bought the 180 I expected to sell the 100, but

have come to realize that - for me at least - the 180 is not a good hand-held choice.

 

My typical way of working with each lens is:

 

100mm = handheld with flashbracket and MT-24 or 550EX

180mm = tripod (90% of time) with bracketed 550EX (or two, or three) with Lumiquest

softboxes