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

[William Michael]

<p>As a 'macro shot' I assume you are asking . . .<br /> Fantastic fun for shooting fish (or anything in or underwater) in a barrel in bright sunlight - losing a stop can be a bit of a pain.<br>

<br /> It is not a situation I have come across often - once only actually and a long time ago: I tried a CPL just for fun and just because I wanted to find out how it would work.<br>

<br /> I guess Photographers who are really into macro might use one more often: but I do not think it would be an high priorty filter to use in day to day macro shooting</p>

<p>WW</p>

[larry h.]

<p>Linda, you said, "I am a senior with a bit of arthritis in my hands, I have a good tripod that I will use." I am not quite the same age (early 50's), but I too have arthritis AND a condition that causes a tremor. So, if there EVER may be a situation where you'll be hand-holding the lens (e.g., portraits and/or, like I do, hiking with family & friends and wanting to shoot the Turk's Cap Lily that happens to be blooming), IS will come in VERY handy.</p>

<p>Two other lenses to consider: The older Sigma non-OS 150mm/2.8 HSM macro and the newer 150mm/2.8 OS HSM macro, both of which have stellar reputations. To me, losing 30mm in length (16.7%) is worth gaining 2/3 of a stop. Be aware, though, that the OS model is a lot heavier, bigger and more expensive than the non-OS model.</p>

<p>Finally, when I rented the non-OS Sigma 150mm and compared it to adapted manual focus 90mm and 55mm macro lenses, I found the 150mm simply too long to use indoors on a tripod shooting a subject on the floor about the size of a dollar bill. So, if you do choose the longer focal lengths (150/180mm), you may find yourself also wanting a 50/55/60mm macro as well. (I've had my eye on a Tamron 60mm/2.0 that can sort of replace both my 50mm/1.4 and my 85mm/1.8.)</p>

<p>Hope this helps. -- Larry</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>There's some comparison in The Digital Picture review:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

[dcstep]

<p>What lenses do you already own? For instance, a 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC and a 25mm ET is an excellent macro lens.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>David, I have the EF 24 -70mm f/2.8 L. I did have the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS but sold it. I found it really soft. I am going to start researching a replacement.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>David, I have the EF 24 -70mm f/2.8 L. I did have the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS but sold it. I found it really soft. I am going to start researching a replacement.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p><strong>Dan, S. Prior, WW, Larry, Mendel,</strong><br>

<br />Thanks to all of you for your thoughts. You have been very helpful.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Well, I bought the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro and have been using it. I am so happy with it it was definitely the right choice for me. I am now busy discovering another world. Thanks so much everyone, your good advice is appreciated. </p><div></div>

[keith_daniels]

<p>I currently have the Canon 180mmL and I can tell you first hand that it is worth every penny. I would not worry about IS and f2.8 as much as I would how much weight you are prepared to carry for extended periods of time. I love my 180mmL 3.5 and let me tell you why: Extremely sharp, great bokeh, don't need to get extremely close to subject. Also, when placed on a APC sensor camera, it turns into a 270mm prime. So, if you don't mind carrying around a 3lb lens and you would prefer to not bend and stoop as much to get those insects, flowers and lizards, then this is your lens. Just a word of caution, this lens is on the heavy/bulky end and I am 6' and 200lbs and after 3-4 hours of shooting with this lens, I am ready to rest.</p>