Canon 180mm Macro v/s Canon 100mm Macro on Digital SLR's

[jayesh]

I remember reading in an article that the 100mm f2.8 Macro (160mm on

a Canon 10D) is more useful than a 180mm f3.5 L Macro (288mm on the

10D) for photographing small insects and flowers. I don't remember

what the logic was behind the statement, but I am now considering

buying the 180mm Macro for my 10D. Am I missing something here? If

the 180mm is better than the 100mm for normal 35mm photography, won't

it be better for digital photography as well? Is there anything I

should know as far as using the 180mm Macro on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR?

[john_nastelin1]

With the 180mm you don't need to get as close to your subject as you would for shorter focal lengths. This is an advantage when shooting insects. Of course, the 180mm lens is 1/2 stop slower but you were planning on using a tripod anyway, right?

[John Crowe]

The 180mm Macro is more than twice the price of the 100mm Macro. For the price difference you could buy another top notch lens that you may be missing. I recommend you think about this a little. You are already quite familiar with the crop factor involved. The reason people using film or full frame DSLR's choose the 180mm is to give more working distance to the subject so it is easier to shoot without shadows and without disturbing your subject. You will benefit from the crop factor immediately. To fill your frame the same way as someone with the same lens on a film camera you will have to move back further which is what you want. So on a 1.6 factor camera the 100mm f2.8 almost (160mm) already gets you what others have to spend twice as much for (180mm). From the little macro work I have done I would say that an almost 300mm Macro lens would be a lot of fun but probably overkill in 90% of situations. If you think it is worth twice as much for the extra 10% of possible images then go for it, otherwise, save the money to put into another worthwhile lens. Good luck!

[andy10]

Jayesh... I pondered over the same question sometime back and finally chose Tamron 180mm macro.. From the reviews I read, tamron was ranked higher than canon 180mm macro in terms of quality and performance/price ratio.. I have been pretty happy with the lens, but I shoot both digital and film...

[jayesh]

Thanks for the answers. John, you've convinced me to bascially keep the 100mm for it's becomes a 160mm lens on the 10D. But what about image quality? Is the 180mm so much better in this respect as to warrant a price of $1200.

 

Anoop, yes I've heard the Tamron is nice. I've also heard the Sigma 180mm is a great lens too.

 

Anyway, for now, I keep my 100mm and learn more before spending more money on a fancy lens

[simonpg]

You need to try both and decide if the magnification degree suits most of what macro work you do. But on the portrait side of things the 100 will be far more useful even with the 1.6 factor. The 100mm f2.8 macro is a sensational lens for macro and portraits. The 180 is of more limited use and at 1.6x it would be limited to specialist macro work and telephoto use. The 180 and 100 in 35mm format are both outstanding and the choice simply comes down to what they are used for - a very individual issue of selection. Only you can decide what suits your use better.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> If I were in the market for a dedicated macro lens, I'd get the <a href="http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html">Tamron 180/3.5</a> for it's build and optical quality, for it's long working distance, for it's reasonable price and for Tamron's excellent compatibility reputation. HTH.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[John Crowe]

The price of the 180mm Macro is not because of superior performance it is because of the attempt, with expensive optics, to make a 200mm Macro (1:1) lens that performs as well as the shorter lenses. If you have a 100 already use it a lot and see if it gets you the working room you need and the magnification that you desire. Good luck!

[whayne_padden]

The best 180mm macro is the Tamron 180 f/3.5 Di Macro. Not as good build quality but less than half the price and optically even better. Also it's a bit smaller and lighter. This lens is as good if not better than the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 Macro which is probably best macro around for 35mm (actually 200 f/4 Micro Nikkor is best but not useful for a Canon).

[bruce_magnuson]

I am having problems with the Tamron 180 macro and my Canon 10D. Very frequently I get an Err 99 when trying to use the lens. I have Canon lenses that work fine with the camera. Tamron has been very unhelpful with this problem. Any suggestions?

[paul_wasserman]

The other difference between Canon's 100 and 180mm macros are the performance of the tripod ring.

 

On the 100 this is an afterthought . . . uh, I mean add-on. It works ok but not great. I found that with a heavier camera, like a 1V with powerbooster, or 1D, the plastic ring that is supposed to anchor the tripod mount to the lens was inadequate. It would either move, or slip out of the tripod mount entirely. Add additional extension tubes or a TC, and you can just forget about it.

 

The tripod ring is integral to the 180, so this is not a problem.