Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon Macro Lenses  (Read 3592 times)

reillynevada

  • Guest
Canon Macro Lenses
« on: December 29, 2010, 12:55:59 am »

I am debating between buying either the Canon 100mm or the 180mm macro L lens.  Any thoughts as to these lenses?  Which would you buy?

Thanks.
Logged

K.C.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2010, 05:13:30 am »

Depends on what you want to shoot and what you prefer as a working distance.

I own both. The 100 is merely great and the 180 is outstanding. The 100 is more versatile and can easily be hand held. The 180 defines sharp but you need a tripod to really work with it comfortably.


Logged

Kees Sprengers

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2010, 05:27:47 am »

To further explore this question:

I have been asked by someone who has to do botanical photography, which includes a fair bit of macro, whether to buy a 60mm or the 100 mm Macro to use on his Canon 550 SLR. The SLR is one with a smaller then full frame sensor. My first reaction is to say go 100, because it allows you some distance from the subject which can be handy, and using the centre of that already sharp lens means you use the best part of it.

Then I hesitated, macro (Plant details) needs DOF, but it is recommended not to stop down too far because of diffraction problems at hi F stops.

Would the 100 mm on the 550 body reduce the DOF, or would it be the same as the 60 mm, because it can sit further away from the subject.

I'd look it up in one o my old books, but I am not at home and won't be for some months.
Logged

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2010, 01:14:14 pm »

Given the same image magnification, the DoF is not determined by focal length.  See here:  Cambridge in Colour DoF

For example, using the 50mm would require getting closer to the flower than the 100mm, so the DoF in the image would be the same as the 100m, which would be positioned further from the flower.  The only way to beat DoF limitations without risking diffraction is focus blending, i.e. multiple images with different focus points merged in post.

Focus blending for flowers is limited to very calm wind conditions...

Lens choice for macro is based on the same old decisions that apply to other lenses:  Distance from subject, weight, max aperture, cost, etc...  Most macro lenses are designed to be quite sharp.  I have the old 50 macro and the 180.  The 100 is a nice compromise between the two. In my opinion the 180 is the best tool if you know you are out to do macro specifically.

Dave
Logged

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2010, 05:46:08 pm »

i recommend the 100 on a crop frame camera as the working distance is good for macro leaving enought room for flash if you need it.  even on crop frame i find the 60mm too short.

the other pricey choice to increase the depth of field is the 90 TS (tilted) which i like a lot -- but for real macro you'll end up with extension tubes and/or closeup lens.  it also doesn't have the convenience of internal focusing which make framing and focusing more work (as does adding and subtracting the extension tubes/filter.  the 90 TS also works well with the 1.4x for effectively 200mm on a crop frame camera

i'd recommend the 100 cost/performance and up-grading to a camera with liveview which changes night into day for composing, focussing, and checking dof
Logged

elf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2010, 07:00:00 pm »

I'd get the MP-e 65  :o

If you're shooting insects, then the 180 would be better. If not, then choose the optically best one.

I like my 35mm macro for flowers, but I don't know if Canon has a comparable lens.

I think lighting will make a much larger difference in image quality than either the 100mm or 180mm lens.  Twin polarized flashes (or more) would be best.
Logged

Geoff Wittig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1023
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2011, 10:30:26 am »

I own both the 180 and 100 mm macro lenses.
For any nature photography, definitely go for the 180 mm macro. As others have noted, depth of field depends on subject magnification rather than focal length, so at 1:1 you'll get an identical depth of field whether you're using a 50 mm, 100 mm or 180 mm lens. What will change is your background coverage. It's much, much harder to exclude distracting out-of-focus background stuff when using a 50 mm macro. The far narrower angle of view provided by a 180 mm lens makes it a lot easier to avoid ugly intrusive background garbage. The greater working distance at 1:1 with the 180 mm macro makes it far easier to use for photographing flowers or bugs out in the real world, especially with a full frame D-SLR. With a smaller sensor APS-C camera, you get even more working distance. You can never have too much. Nothing's quite as maddening as maneuvering to photograph a backlit spiderweb loaded with dewdrops, only to bump the plant it's suspended on with the tripod leg because your working distance is so tight. Splash. No more photograph.

The newer 100 mm macro is great as an all-around lens, as it's scary sharp and terrific for portraits, where the IS function is invaluable. It's light and compact enough to bring along on hikes even if you don't plan on shooting macro images. The 180 is a fabulous lens optically, but it's much bigger and much heavier.
Logged

Kees Sprengers

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2011, 11:10:41 am »

dchew >Given the same image magnification, the DoF is not determined by focal length. <

Thank you. I have a vague notion I asked that question 30 odd years ago when researching what macro lens to buy (For my then Canon F1, while working as museum photographer) But I wasn't certain this week if I remembered right.

Stever >i'd recommend the 100 cost/performance and up-grading to a camera with liveview which changes night into day for composing, focussing, and checking dof<

I ran a trial using my own 100mm on my old 20 D and 5D MkII. I like the close crop you get with cropframe. I also now appreciate the use of liveview, having tried it on the 5D II
Just a matter of seeing whether my client can afford to change up his plan from 550 to 60D . money maybe a limiter.

Thank you for your comments Geoff, but I think the 180 is out of question for  same reason, $$$
Having read the DPReview test on the new 100, I think that considering the limitations, it will be an older 100 for the time being.

I appreciated all the feedback. I'm trying to assist these people getting the most effective gear for a limited budget. This was really helpful.
Logged

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2011, 12:56:42 pm »

consider a used 100 macro - the prices got a bit depressed with the introduction of the 100L.  a reputable dealer like Adorama will give you return privilege
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: Canon Macro Lenses
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2011, 07:45:02 pm »

I'd get the MP-e 65  :o
If you're shooting insects, then the 180 would be better. If not, then choose the optically best one.
I like my 35mm macro for flowers, but I don't know if Canon has a comparable lens.
I think lighting will make a much larger difference in image quality than either the 100mm or 180mm lens.  Twin polarized flashes (or more) would be best.


That is my next purchase

I love many aspects about the 100mm f/2.8L but its pitiful 180-degree manual focusing capability is ridiculous for tight, ultra-close precision shots (compared to the 720-degree manual rotation of a Zeiss). I am waiting for a second-generation 180mm lens to come out, and I HOPE they remove ALL AF efforts out of this lens and leave it 100% MF like a good macro lens should be. Auto-focus is great on the 100 f/2.8, and I use it extensively for "quick shots" of bugs before they get away ... but the downside paradox is ... the better and faster the AF for quick shots ... the worse the MF is when you need super-precise shots.

The MP-E 65 is a great macro tool and is a lens overlooked by many ... but the shots I have seen friends take truly are spectacular. Rather than a mere 1:1 life-size magnification, it goes all the way up to 5:1 magnification ... and, of course, is 100% MF.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 07:47:31 pm by John Koerner »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up