EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM

[cjtj50]

Hello, I'm curious to hear from a owner of this lens and there thoughts. I'm in the market for a Macro lens for my

Canon 40D and thought this one sounded very interesting. Thank you very much.

[cjtj50]

Hello again...as I'm reading on about these lenses the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens looks like it will be compatible with my camera and the above is not. My apologizes for asking a dumb question.

[lester_wareham]

They are both compatible with your camera and both very good lenses.

 

You don't say what sort of macro shots you want to take, but the 100mm is probably the best general purpose macro lens for a crop camera.

 

The 180mm is much larger and heavier, but gives more reach and background isolation due to perspective (but sometimes you can have too much reach).

 

You might find some of my macro equipment notes informative http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm

[JDMvW]

The _EF_180mm Macro will definitely work on your 40D! There may be one or two oddball exceptions, but all EF and EF-S lenses should mount and work properly on your camera.

 

However, the older _FD_ lenses and others made before 1986 will NOT work without an adapters with optics, widely considered to not be worth the trouble.

[cjtj50]

Hi Lester, as you can see I have been a little confused on the macro lenses. I have been reading all morning studying up before I decide to purchase. I so appreciate you commenting on this subject for me and after I'm done here I will read up on the website you sent. Thanks again you have been very informative. Have a good day.

[cjtj50]

JDM...Thank you very much I do so appreciate your comments. They are very informative also/good to know :o). Take care

[cjtj50]

Lester...Flowers and insects are my choice of macro subjects.

[matthijs]

Hi Cynthia, even within Canon alone there's quite some choice.

 

(A 50mm, 60mm, 100mm and a 180mm which all fit your 40d.)

 

The 50 only gives 1:2 size unless you buy an adapter.

The 60 is made for camera's like the 40D but you'll have to get pretty close. Doubles as a very short tyele/short portret lens.

The 100 is a great multipurpose macro which doubles as a short tele/portrait lens.

The 180 is a beast which has a steep learning curve and which probably requires a tripod plus slider construction. However image quality is superb and is doubles as a tele/tight portrait lens.

 

In your case, considering your experience level and your probable budget I'd advice the 100mm/2.8 Macro lens which has a lot of uses, perfect image quality and does not break the bank or your back.

 

Regards, Matthijs.

 

P.S. There's a extremely specialized 65mm too but at the moment you won't want that.

P.P.S. Tamron and Sigma make nice Macro's too but if you can afford the 100mm Canon you can stop looking around and just buy that one.

[zafar1]

For flowers, you can live with 50-60 mm and 100mm will be fine. However insects come in different sizes. If you

are planning to shoot ants and mosquitoes, then 180mm will do you good.

 

For grasshoppers, butterflies, etc 100mm should be good enough (specially given that on 40D it is already

equivalent to 160mm). I would suggest 100mm if you are not too sure that you want 180mm.

 

You may also want to consider extension tubes, which can convert your existing lens(es) into fine macros and you

are not restricted to any special focal length. A while ago I put extension tubes on 70-200 and took some of the

best macros that I have ever had (which is not saying much!).

[steve torelli]

I've been through several macro lenses over the years, including the two Canons you're considering. The 180 is a great lens, compared to the 100 though it's big, heavy and slow focusing.The IQ is very close and I mean very close though the 180L does have a nicer boke. Currently I'm using the 150mm Sigma and I really can't recommend it enough. It's half the price of the 180L and only a little more than the 100 2.8 but it comes with a lens hood and a tripod ring which are extras on the Canon 100. It's a 2.8, sharp as the proverbial tack and makes a great portrait lens on a FF camera. You really can't go wrong with any quality macro, they're all very sharp. Focal length and price are the main consideration. Good luck.

[anthony_zipple]

Great lens but a big gun on a 40D. Unless you really need the distance, the 100mm f/2.8 is a more useful lens. For the price of a 180, you could buy the 100 and a 24EX macro flash. I own lenses, but do not use the 180 much anymore. It is very long when used with a 40D and just too much glass for the large majority of my work.

[cjtj50]

Hello to each of you and a huge THANK YOU for all of your very informative comments. I will go back again and re-read everyone of your answers again tomorrow morning when my brain is fresh ;O) and think seriously about which macro to purchase. This is one of the many reasons that I have become a member on PN. Every lens that I have purchased I am so pleased with and it is because of wonderful Photographers suggestions like you here on PN. I could not have done it without any of you. Thank you again for all your help and may you find kindness at your doorstep every day. Take care

[dogbert]

If you are still unsure, get the 100 f2.8 macro. It is the most versatile macro lens Canon make. Optics, focussing and build are great. It will work on the 40D as well as full frame 5D if you upgrade. If you are into macro this is really the first lens you should own.

[JDMvW]

Although it costs a lot more, the 180mm will be much better for live insects. There are two cheaper alternatives

 

1) Tamron also makes a highly regarded 180mm true macro with autofocus et al.

 

2) Try a long, non-macro automatic focus or manual focus lens with an extension tube. In fact, many of the 400 to

500mm prime lenses can be used this way. Although the mirror lenses are not ideal because of their out-of-focus

characteristics, they will fill the frame with a 'bug' at their closest focus. Manual focus is not a problem,

because in real macro (1:1) type work, the depth of field is so shallow as to require human judgment about

where sharpest focus should go anyway.

 

The attached picture reflects the general softness of a MF Quantaray 500mm mirror lens, plus the fact that there

were some problems with the T-mount that came with it. I have subsequently got a Spiratone 500 mirror lens

(better) and most recently a Reflex Nikkor 500mm mirror lens (best). However, I haven't yet caught a swallowtail

with them.<div></div>

[robin_sibson1]

I do a lot of botanical work, and would not generally want to use the 100mm macro lens, let alone anything longer, on a 1.6-factor body for that purpose. 100mm on FF, 60mm on 1.6-factor is fine, but even that can sometimes be a bit long, and I would not part with my precious 50/2.5(+LSC) until something equivalent but better comes along. For insects, it does depend very much on the insect, but 100mm on 1.6-factor is not a bad starting point. I find that the 135/2L on an EF25 tube is a very effective combination for medium to large butterflies and the larger dragonflies, good enough that, for something I don't do a lot of, I haven't felt the need for the 180/3.5L.

[cjtj50]

Thank you all so very much for commenting on my question. So far I am leaning towards the 100mm f/2.8 but still need some time to re-read all of your suggestions. It's great to have everyone's views to go over and learn about these lenses. Also If I choose the above that I mentioned and then down the road want to purchase another I have the information here to go back over. Thank you again for enlightening me. Have a great day

[leif_goodwin8]

I own the Nikon 60mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 200mm (x2) micro lenses. I would not recommend the 60mm for insects as the

working distance is too small. The 200mm lens is my favourite as it lets me keep my distance from nervous

insects, though even then it is not always long enough. The 200mm is the lens I use most of the time. But it is

big, heavy, expensive and requires a very good tripod and head

 

The 105mm is the best compromise. It is ideal for plants, fungi and sleepy insects. And it is ideal for use with

a macro flash. These comments will apply to Canon gear, since focal length is the key consideration. I think a

100mm macro lens would perhaps be the best first macro lens for most people.

 

If insects are your interest, then you will need to read up on them and learn how to find them.

[alan_myers]

Hi Cynthia,

 

I'd encourage you to consider the 100/2.8 over the 180/3.5.

 

I have both macro lenses and, frankly, the 180mm doesn't get much use when I'm shooting with 1.6X crop sensor cameras like your 40D. It's too long, a lot more difficult to hand hold or even to keep steady on a tripod (you need to stop down because depth of field is very thin, and that means slower shutter speeds).

 

And, it's not as "multi-purpose" as the 100/2.8 is. The current, USM version of the 100mm can pretty well double as a short telephoto for non-macro shooting too. Especially if you use the focus limiter switch properly, auto focus is fast enough for many shooting situations. The 180mm is noticeably slower auto focusing even using the limiter switch.

 

Now, for me the differences in AF speed really don't matter much when shooting macro images. That's because I usually turn off AF and focus manually, anyway.

[cjtj50]

Hello Leif and Alan....you also have been very helpful in making my decision on the lenses, and I do so appreciate your time and comments. The reading here has been very interesting and a good learning. Thank you for helping me through this process and peace to you and yours.

[jmcconnell2]

Hi CJ. I have been going through the same sort of decision making process. Every serious photog needs a good macro lens, and everyone who uses a macro has a favorite! One of my favorite places to shop is Keh Camera, (kehcamera.com). They sell both new and used cameras and lenses, and their reputation is second to none. They grade their used lenses from LN (like new) to UG ugly. You do have 2 weeks to return it. I bought a Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro about 3 months ago, it was rated BGN (bargain), and I paid $76.00. It had a couple of small scratches in the paint of the lens barrel, the lenses themselves were perfect. I have taken many shots with it, and I love it! Also, if you want to see reviews on popular lenses, go to photozone.de, They are the best for unbiased, detailed, reviews. As you will see, they let the chips fall where they may. I hope this helps.

[cjtj50]

Hello Jim, I have not purchased my macro yet do too $$$ but still plan on purchasing one in the future. I will however look at Keh and see what they have, it sounds like a great site. I appreciate you informing me of more info for this lens. Thank you so much Jim. Have a great day.

[color]

Hi Cynthia

 

I just discovered this thread. Hopefully my input will be useful.

 

I have a 20D and a 5D and two macro lenses, the Canon 100mm f 2.8 and a Sigma 50mm. The 50mm lets you get

very close to the subject. I like both and think that both are a good value for the $. BTW, not only are these good

macro lenses, but they're also good general purpose primes.

[cjtj50]

<p>Thank you Chuck, my apologies for coming back so late. I appreciate your advice/input. Take care</p>