Canon Macro Lens - 100mm f/2.8 L or 180mm f/3.5 L which one should I buy?

[ldavidson]

<p>Hi there experienced Macro Photographers,<br>

<br />I live in a small town in south central, British Columbia, Canada. I want to buy a good L series Canon Macro lens. The Canon <strong>EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro</strong> and the Canon<strong> EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM Macro</strong> Lens are the two that seem like they would be the best for me. I have done all my research on line but haven't actually seen or tried either one because there isn't a store that keeps either one in stock. Here, you have to order and prepay, with a no return policy, in order for them to bring one or the other in. Obviously I am a little nervous about spending $1500. - $1800. on a lens I have never seen or touched. I always get good advice here, so I am wondering if anyone out there has either of these lens and what you think? I am a senior with a bit of arthritis in my hands, I have a good tripod that I will use.<br>

Thanking you in advance.<br>

Best wishes, <br />Linda Davidson</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>They are both very, very good. You just need to decide which focal length you want, whether you need image stabilization and how much you want to spend.</p>

<p>Most people would probably go for the 100mm macro I think. It also has Canon's hybrid IS system which will give you a lot more stability for handheld macro shots. It's smaller and lighter too if those are considerations.</p>

<p>The 180mm lens would give you a little more working distance, but you will need a tripod since it has no form of image stabilization. It can also take Canon's 1.4x and 2x multipliers and serve duty as a telephoto lens.</p>

<p>I presume that if you buy either one from a major online retailer that you would be able to return it with no problem if you didn't like it, but I suspect the 100mm is the one you'll probably want,</p>

<p>I have a bit more on macro lenses on my website here - <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/macro_lenses.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/macro_lenses.html</a></p>

[mpalmquist]

<p>I now own the 100 2.8L and I rented the 180 for a few days a couple years ago when I needed a macro and couldn't afford it. <br /> The 100 is MUCH lighter, has very fast AF (great for general lens use) has hybrid IS if you ever have to use it hand held. the 180L while older has outstanding IQ I would say just slightly behind the 100L until you get to f8+ which you will be using for macro most of the time anyway. It AFs VERY slowly if you are going to use AF, if you are using a tripod MF is usually the best method so this may not be an issue.<br /> For strictly macro work close to the 1:1 range the difference is working distance from the subject where the 180 might be a benefit 'in the wild' getting that flower or whatever that is not easily accessed due to an obstruction in getting close enough with the 100.</p>

[eric_washburn]

<p>If you get the 100 and want to use either of Canon's Speedlites designed for macro use, you'll need Canon's Macrolite Adapter 67, $30-$35.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you currently have a zoom that covers these focal lengths, you might consider first trying either a close-up ("diopanork at both focal lengths and get a better sense of which might make most sense for you. (You might also find out that one or the other of those approaches might even get you what you want!)</p>

<p>You did not mention what camera body you use. If you use a cropped sensor body, the 180mm focal length will be quite long on your camera.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I rented both of them on different occasions (180L and 100 2.8 IS) I bought the 100 2.8 IS.<br>

Here are some scenarios that would lead me to suggest the 180 over the 100:<br>

If your passion for macro is capturing pictures of very shy flying insects that spook easily when you get close.<br>

If you are limited in physical mobility and won't be able to bend easily at the waste or get low quickly and easily.<br>

If you really want a 180 tele as well as a fantastic macro.<br>

Reasons for getting the 100mm:<br>

It is lighter and easier to handle.<br>

It is a great 100mm lens for portraits and anything else requiring 100mm.<br>

There are more of them on the market used if you want to save 10 to 15% off the new price.<br>

"Probably" easier to sell if you decide to sell.....<br>

Final thoughts: If you don't have an identified need for the 180 and have no way to try them to see the difference.... I'd suggest getting the 100mm. It is more often than not going to be the one that will work best for you.<br>

Richard<br>

Here is an image I shot this morning in natural light with the 100.... not the best... just the one I shot this morning...<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/33755787@N03/7602935632/in/photostream/lightbox/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/33755787@N03/7602935632/in/photostream/lightbox/</a></p>

 

[ldavidson]

<p>Thanks so much everyone.<br>

G Dan, I have a 7D. <br>

Linda</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Richard, thanks for your thoughts and for your image - very nice!</p>

[rjtully]

<p>Linda, I too use a 7D and I have the 100 f2.8l. I think this combo is great. Has been extremely sharp no matter the distance to the subject. The hybrid-IS is great also. Would highly recommend this lens. I have no experience with the 180 but the 2.8 in my opinion is the way to go.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I have both lenses, Linda. They are equally good for macro work. You won't be disappointed in either. Given your intended method of shooting, you could save quite a bit and get the 100mm f/2.8 (the non-"L" version). It lacks IS, but you intend to use it on a tripod, so that shouldn't be a factor. The IQ is every bit as good as the L.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Linda:</p>

<p>A big difference is going to be working distance when you're at 1x. With the 100/2.8L, you have about 6"; with the 180, 10".</p>

<p>The other difference is fantastic IS in the 100/2.8L and none in the 180. </p>

<p>I decided to go with the 100/2.8L, and I have not regretted that decision.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[William Michael]

<p>One point which I don’t believe has been mentioned in detail, though glossed upon by Mark –<br>

One of the two lenses is going to be “of better use for you” as a Prime Lens, in your kit. i.e. uses NOT being with or for macro considerations.</p>

<p>Apropos WEIGHT and IS - generally and for most Photographers, the 100/2.8 with faster AF, would be a more useful Prime Lens on 7D than a 180/3.5.</p>

<p>I use my 100/2.8 as a general purpose Prime Lens on APS-C cameras – I would not use the 180/3.5 in that manner all that much.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Linda,<br>

All very good points here to consider!<br>

Just wanted to chime in . . . I've had my EF100 f/2.8 Macro IS for just over a year now. It and the 100-400 are the only "L" glass I own, both having IS, . . . I could'nt live without it even though I most generally use a tripod. The Hybrid IS on the 100/2.8 is wonderful hand-held!<br>

Here is a couple of shots I took just Monday morning walking around in the yard with my 50D.<br>

<a href="../photo/16113212">http://www.photo.net/photo/16113212</a><br>

<a href="../photo/16113952">http://www.photo.net/photo/16113952</a></p>

[paddler4]

<p>I do a lot of macro with a crop sensor camera (hence the same field of vision as your 7d). I have the 100mm L and the EF-S 60mm. I have not used the 180mm and would only consider it because I chase bugs. It is a long lens on a crop sensor, it is very expensive, and it weighs about 400g more than the 100. Even though I do more macro than anything else, it is way down on my list of goodies.</p>

<p>For flowers on a crop sensor, it is a toss-up in my mind between 60 and 100mm. The majority of my tripod flower work I do with the 60mm because I find the shorter working distance more convenient, but occasionally I find the extra reach of the 100 helpful. I almost always use the 100mm for bugs. If you want extreme closeups of flowers, the 60mm will give you more magnification than the 100 for any given length of extension tubes.</p>

<p>I agree with one of the earlier postings: if you are going to use it only on a tripod, the L is probably a waste of money. The non-L 100mm macro is optically excellent. I opted for the 100L because I do some hand-held macro work and because I occasionally use mine as a telephoto. The IS helps modestly at macro distances (perhaps 1.5 stops) but a great deal at longer distances.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Although I don't have either lens, I did get another make 90mm macro and found it a good working solution on an APS-C camera. On the larger format, it's OK, but longer would be nicer for skittish subjects, as already said above.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Thanks so much for all this information everyone, this has been very helpful. I really appreciate it. I am now leaning towards the 100 f/2.8 L.<br>

I forgot to ask what filter would you recommend for this lens? I have a B&W 77 010 UV Haze 1X MRC filter on my 24-70mm f/2.8 L, the lens I use most often. This is a wonderful lens, I love it. The color and definition I get with this filter is excellent, well I think it is, but I am not a pro. For the macro I want a filter for protection first, for glare, color etc. next. <br>

Thanks again.<br>

Linda</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>No filter needed. There is no value in "UV filtering" on DSLRs, since they are not sensitive to UV light in the ways the film supposedly was. Unless you shoot with a sealed body (you don't) and in extremely hostile environments, there is little to no need for a "protective" front filter - put the lens cap on when not shooting, and use the lens hood and you'll be fine.</p>

<p>Some will differ (this is one of the longest running debates in photo forums) but I don't feel that a protective filter makes a lot of sense as insurance either. More here: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not">UV Filter or Lens Cap and Hood?</a></p>

<p>Dan</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I use a Hoya Pro UV on my EF100F/2.8 Macro<br /> For “protection” I also (mainly) use the lens hood, which is a separate purchase: I would encourage you to buy it.<br /> For “Flare”, (not 'glare' i.e. UV Filtering for Atmospherics): a filter can make Flare worse.</p>

<p>Not wishing to begin the age old debate about ‘protection Filters’ but just to mention I do use a UV Filter of my macro lens because I crawl around in bushes and undergrowth with that rig and I have had twigs and other stuff penetrate the Lens Hood and hit the Filter – which would have been the lens’s front element:<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14309152-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="486" /><br /> I also use this lens as a Portrait Lens and I shoot Portraiture near (or in) the ocean (salt water) quite often.</p>

<p>I do also choose when to remove the UV Filter before shooting – and I believe that is an important point to make.<br /> ***<br /> You might also look at the Tripod Mount Ring (another additional purchase).<br /> I use mine quite often.<br /> Depending upon the Tripod Rig you use the Tripod Mount Ring allows the camera to sit back a little farther which is convenient in this type of rig.<br /> Especially if you use Extension Tubes or a Tele-extender with the Macro Lens the rig is better balanced using the Tripod Mount Ring.<br /> Also the Tripod Mount makes it much easier and quicker to move from Horizontal to Vertical Orientation:<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13011934-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="567" /><br /> ***<br /> <a href="../photo/12352953&size=lg">On a sunny day, outside for Flowers and the like there is usually enough natural light to make exposure Hand Held.</a> But, I bought my EF100F/2.8 Macro many years prior to the “L IS” version being released – and I am not in a rush to buy the IS version at the moment because I am content with what I have: but if I were buying that 100mm FL now, I would buy the newer IS lens in an heartbeat, because of the IS being so valuable for when a 100mm lens is to be used hand held.<br /> In this regard I suggest you seriously consider (limitlessly) how you MIGHT use a 100mm IS lens, rather than thinking how you use (for example) your 70mm now . . . and then think about the possibilities of a casual Macro shot using IS . . . <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=945950">just if you happen to spy an interesting shot - because realistically about 1/30s is about the limit for Macro Hand Held - why not pay a bit extra and have the extended ability.</a></p>

<p>As mentioned I use my EF100/2.8Macro for Portraiture also – even when the shot was not planned, the lens is very nice, <a href="../photo/10738709&size=lg">this was taken using a 5D</a> . . . Image Stabilization would have been handy.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[geoffm]

 

<blockquote>

<p>I use a Hoya Pro UV on my EF100F/2.8 Macro</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me, too. And for much the same reasons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For “protection” I also (mainly) use the lens hood, which is a separate purchase: I would encourage you to buy it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 100 L IS, being an L lens, comes complete with a hood. And it's a whopper that can cut your "subject-to-front-bit-of-gear distance" down to next to nothing at 1:1, and tends to scare the butterflies! I use it whenever I can.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You might also look at the Tripod Mount Ring (another additional purchase).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree here, too. I got one from Ebay that is well-(enough)-made and a fraction the price of Canon's.<br>

I also very much appreciate the IS, as I shoot quite a lot of my macros hand-held. Not necessarily for the "extra 2-stops" you get at 1:1 (which doesn't always help with a flower moving in the breeze), but for the steadying effect it has in the viewfinder. This makes it much easier for me to compose and place the plane of focus where I want it, than was the case with the old viewfinder jiggle (try that with in-body stabilisation!)</p>

<p><br /><br /> </p>

 

[esfishdoc]

<p>I'm in the "no filter" camp. Never had one.. never will.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>opps - error on my part sorry for that.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Dan, thanks for the link to your article, you have given me something to think about and to experiment with. I also checked out your images on Flicker, wonderful work! <br>

WW, I live in an area that is surrounded by wilderness. Sometimes when out fishing with my husband I also crawl around in bushes with my 24 -70 mm. and have had tree gum, twigs etc. on my filter. <br>

Geoff, Richard, thanks for responding. <br>

I appreciate your thoughts so much. You have given me something to think about. I am going to try shooting with and without the filter. <br>

Linda</p>

 

[chris_clarke3]

<p>The 100L is just a great lens. It's light and usable as a portrait or general prime. This lens gets a lot of use by me. the 100mm focal length is very useful and the IS is amazing. The sharpest lens I have used. </p>

[paddler4]

<p>My two cents about the filter issue. I'll try to avoid the holy wars about it and focus specifically on macro shooting.</p>

<p>For chasing bugs, the hood is problematic because it makes it impossible to get close enough. So, there is no way to protect the lens with a hood. For that reason, I generally do keep a filter on for protection when doing field macro work. I use a Hoya HMC or S-HMC. I take it off if the light is coming from in front of the camera to avoid extra flare. For work under controlled circumstances, e.g., macro shots of flowers done indoors, I keep the filter off. More generally, I tend to keep one on if I am in circumstances where the lens could be damaged, as long as the light is from the rear, and try never to have one on if the light might come from the front.</p>

[s._prior]

<p>How do people feel about a polarizer on a macro lens? Anyone recommend it and in what situation.</p>