Which EOS Macro lens

[jana_mullerova]

I have no experience with a dedicated Macro lens, so it's a difficult decision now when I'm going to buy one. It will be one of the Canon EOS line and I expect to end up with the 100/2.8, but that's more a feeling and theory. I'm also considering the 180/3.5L. It allows a longer distance and it's a L glass - but is the difference in quality significant, compared with the 100/2.8? In fact, is there a difference? The 100/2.8 has such a good reputation. Also, if I have a correct information, the 180/3.5 doesn't work with the ML-3 flash. What other pro's and con's should I consider? Which of these lenses would you recommend from your experience?

[bobatkins]

I get the feeling this has been covered before...

 

<p>

 

In general a longer focal length macro is better for nature work

because it allows more distance between the subject and the lens.

This is often useful, but no doubt there are a few times when the

opposite might be true.

 

<p>

 

Advantages of the 180 are (1) Tripod collar. VERY useful when switching from horizontal to vertical. (2) It takes the Canon

TCs directly. The 100 macro needs an extension tube between the

lens and TC which can affect image quality and means infinity

focus is lost. Not a problem for macro, but inconvenient when

using the lens for landscapes!

 

<p>

 

Unless size, weight and cost are an issue, the 180 is probably the

lens of choice for most nature macro shooters.

[paul_wilson2]

I would think the full-time manual focus of the 180 would be very useful if you're trying to do handheld shots of bugs. If I used EOS, this would factor heavily in my decision.

[markci]

The only thing more completely worthless than autofocus in macro range is autofocus in macro range _handheld_. Just move the camera. No need for FTM.

<P>

Get the 180 if you can afford it anyway, mainly for the tripod collar. Get yourself a nice focussing rail.

[paul_wilson2]

Mark, have you ever tried to take handheld bug shots(which implies the use of a flash)? I do it with my N90s and 200/4 and AF is pretty useful. It would be a lot more useful if I had multiple focus points and FTM.

 

<p>

 

You must have a steadier hand than I do and if you can keep a bug in focus. If you can do it with a bug that's on a branch swaying in the wind, I'm especially impressed.

 

<p>

 

I'll say it again, AF is useful when taking handheld shots of bugs and FTM would make it even more useful.

[markci]

Yes, Paul, I have, and I find it much easier to worry about keeping a moving insect in focus by moving the camera than to worry about the composition of the photo while keeping the bug's eyeball under an AF sensor (whether you have one or several) and dealing with the changing reproduction ratio as the lens racks in and out.

[ShunCheung]

This topic has indeed been discussed a few times recently, although those threads weren't Canon specific.

 

<p>

 

As Bob says, the general rule of thumb is that for nature macro work, a 100mm macro is better than a 50mm, while a 200mm macro is even better than a 100mm because you get to stay a little further away from the subject. The fact that 200mm macros tend to have a tripod collar is a major plus. (Typically, there is not enough room on the shorter macros for a tripod collar.)

 

<p>

 

The problem is that in the case of Canon, the 180mm/f3.5 L costs about three times as much as the 100mm/f2.8 macro. If cost isn't an issue, I would say the 180mm is the way to go. Whether it is worth the price difference (roughly US$1500 vs. $500) is your individual decision.

[richard_shiell]

Um, just as a contrary viewpoint, I'll recommend a two-element diopter to fit your favorite telephoto zoom lens (assuming you have one). The Canon 500D is excellent, and I've sold rights in dozens of images made with a 77mm 500D on the Nikon 80-200/2.8. (The combo is so good, in fact, that I regularly use it for general closeup work instead of my 105/2.8 macro, which mostly gets used for extreme closeups and copy work).

[paulo_bizarro]

I have used both lenses you mention, and no doubt the 180 is a clear winner, for the reasons stated in previous posts. Also, it is a lot easier to handle and work with, because the lenght of the lens does not change. But more important, optical quality is even better than with the 100 macro.

 

<p>

 

I find AF useful as well, but one has to get familiar with the range switch. It is an expensive lens, but then it is TC compatible, it has a very useful tripod collar, it has fast and silent AF, smooth manual focus, and so on.

 

<p>

 

If money is tight at the moment, do not buy the 100 macro, instead save for this lens and wait until you can afford it. In the meantime, a 50 1.8 and a 25 tube will give you excellent results.

[glen_johnson]

If you can afford it, get the 180. If you can't, the 100 is very nice, and you can extend its working distance just fine with a Tele-extender. If you use the Canon Tele-extender, you'll also need a 12mm extension tube. The 100 is lighter, and I think its more versatile. If someone thinks that the optical quality of the 180 is significantly better in any practical way as far as final images are concerned, I would say that they are either not using their 100 right, or their 100 is a bad sample.

[paulo_bizarro]

Glen,

 

<p>

 

I have extensively used the 100 macro in the past, until I was offered a good dealon the 180 macro. I am very disciplined when it comes to shooting macro, I have developed what I think is a sound technique, with tripod and focusing rail assemblage, and MLU.

 

<p>

 

My results have showed me that the 180 macro is optically better than the 100 macro, using the same film and similar subjects (namely flowers). This is true for colour rendition, which I find to be more accurate.

 

<p>

 

I am by no means flaming the 100 macro, a truly excellent lens, which provided me with excellent results. I am just stating, from my experience, that the 180 macro is capable of even better results. Is it so strange or difficult to accept it?

[glen_johnson]

It becomes ever clearer to me that color arguments with slide film are just as bankrupt as they are with print film, especially if the argument is in defense of the idea that one lens is better than another lens.

 

<p>

 

What emulsion? What batch number? What light source? What angle? If outdoors, what time of day? What developing process? Dip & dunk? Tube? Small tank? What pH for the color developer? etc. etc. etc.

 

<p>

 

If you're not going to control it at this level, at least you owe it to yourself to not fool yourself into thinking that a difference that you see is completely due to the lens in use.

 

<p>

 

You can switch the lenses back and forth, and depending on the above factors, one might come out on top in one set of tests, and the other might come out on top in another set of tests.

 

<p>

 

The 180 is a nice lens, and someone who can afford it, and who also doesn't mind carrying its weight, is likely to enjoy it very much. For someone on a tighter budget, the 100, or maybe even just a screw on closeup lens, can produce some great macro shots, and you can also get the Novaflex reversing adapter for the EOS lenses from Calumet, so that you can take your wide angle or normal lens and use them for closeups at a relatively modest cost.

 

<p>

 

Bob, I suppose you killed the other posts, but it really is fair game to point out that a reader might want to click on the e-mail address of the person posting the response to get some idea of what they really know about a subject based on their full history of posting. There is a heck of a lot of posturing and puffing on photo.net, and many readers assume that anyone with the chutzpa to post something must be an "expert."

[bobatkins]

I think it's correct that looking for lens with "true" color redition is impossible, given that no slide or print film sees the way our

eyes see, and all have a different color palette.

 

<p>

 

What you can say is that the color redition of lenses is different. Normally it's consistant for a given line of lenses, so I'd be quite surprised if the 100 Macro was significantly different from the 180 Macro - both from the Canon EF lens line. It's possible, but since I haven't done the tests, I don't know.

 

<p>

 

However I have looked at, for example, a Sigma 400/5.6 APO and a Canon

300/4 + 1.4x TC, side by side and there was a significant difference in color rendition. You could even see it through the viewfinder! The Sigma was biased to the yellow, the Canon seemed more neutral. It basically depends on the characteristics of the antireflection coating and the transmission characteristics of the glass used. I know Canon

try to balance the two to give a "neutral" color bias and a consistant color performance across their lens line.

 

<p>

 

As for posters qualifications to make statements about lenses, you have to judge that for yourself. I deleted a couple of posts on that topic because this isn't Usenet, and we don't get into those debates here, since we don't know the facts.

[jana_mullerova]

Thank you everybody for the inspiring and reassuring (none of the lenses is a mistake to buy) debate. According to the optical performance graphs in "Lens Work II", the 100 is very good, the 180 is truly excellent. I'll go for the 180, also because it allows a greater distance, has a tripod collar and works directly with the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs.

[david_warburton1]

The instruction manual for the ML-3 shows it with the 180L so I think it's a fair bet that they're compatible. The confusion is because the 180 has a 72mm filter thread but a 58mm front element and the ML3 is about 58mm id.

 

David Warburton

[nandakumar_sankaran]

For the record, Canon's new release of the 100/2.8 Macro has (1) USM, (2) optional tripod collar, (3) Full-time manual focus and (4) internal focussing so the length never changes and the front element doesn't rotate. The optics are supposed to have been improved as well. I'm waiting for some magazine to compare the optical performances of the 100/2.8 and 180/3.5L lenses.

[mlfly]

I can verify the yellow shift of the Sigma APO 400 f5.6 compared to my 600 Canon. Not only is it yellow but it is a slightly blown out yellow - IOW, it seems like a hot spot at normal exposure. I use and love the 400 Sigma but it ain't perfect. For 12x the cost you can get a perfect lens and it's big too :)

 

I use the 100 macro or the 70-200 with a 500D. Best of both worlds, IMHO.

 

Mike

[nandakumar_sankaran]

The new Canon 100/2.8 USM macro lens' manual mentions a tripod collar accessory. However, it also mentions that the tripod collar is incompatible with some Canon bodies. I called up Canon's tech support line to find out which bodies are incompatible. The support specialist put me on hold for a while, did some research and came back with the following answer:

 

The pentaprism on some camera bodies will bump into the tripod collar's screw, making vertical shots impossible. These camera bodies are the EOS 1N, EOS 1NRS, EOS3, EOS RT, 620, 630 and 650.

 

Hope this helps.

[paulo bizarro]

The previous posting is not correct, as far as the Eos 1n is concerned. I use this camera with the new 100 macro and its tripod collar. It rotates freely, no problem.