Canon 180mm Macro $$$$

Is this lens really worth the cash when you can get the Sigma 180 at half the price?

Keeping in mind my bias since I bought the thing, the Canon is more solidly built and you don't have to worry about future compatibility with new camera models. Having said that, the image quality is supposed to be at least as good as the Canon - a couple of reliable reviewers have suggested it is actually sharper.

By the way, since money seems to be a concern in a number of your posts, you may want to consider the used market. KEH has a very good reputation for their used lenses.

I just got my tax return filed so my camera budget has almost doubled. I have about 2g to spend on gear.

That puts the 180 that Canon produces in my grasp...it's just whether or not it's worth the extra pennies. I mean, for the price of the Canon 180 I can get the Sigma and another lens of some sort.

Kyle: There are a number of folks on the Flora board that shoot with the Sigma 180 and 150 macros and swear by them. You've made a good decision to go with the longer focal length. You might contact Nathan Buck, Mike Moats and Larry Lynch directly and query them about third party macros.>=))>

Is it necessary to get a flash with these lenses. I'm almost certain I'm going to go with the Sigma 180, the Canon I'm sure is built better, but the Sigma has a 4 year warranty from factory so I feel good about having that lens. Also....I can get another lens with the money I've saved from not getting the Canon!!

I'll probably use that extra cash to finance a good wide-angle zoom lens for landscape photography once I figure out what I want as far as focal length goes.

So....do I need a flash? It just seems like with the 180 I may be too far away to actually use it?

Thanks!

Go for the Sigma. It is truely a great lens and it is not worth paying the extra $ for the Canon.

You don't need a separate macro flash unit, like the MR-14 or the MT-24. Those are nice flashes, but with a long macro lens, the light will reflect directly back into the lens. Just think about all of the lighting recommendations where they suggest moving the flash off-axis out of the hotshoe. All of the problems associated with hot-shoe flash become far worse.

Those two flash units work best at extremely close range, such as with the 65 mm 1x-5x macro lens, where being 1" from the lens is still massively off-axis.

On the other hand, a hot shoe mounted type of flash unit could be very useful with an off-camera cord and a diffuser. If you already own one, such as the new 430 model (not to be confused with a much older 430 model that is cheap), 420 or the 550/580, just get an off camera flash cord and a diffuser for the flash and you are set.

For a diffuser, I use am using something like the Lumiquest Mini Softbox for my 420 flash. A big problem in macro, until you become aware of it, is strong, flash induced shadows. The softbox really cuts down on contrasty shadows and you get much more of a controlled studio use of light. For really tiny critters, like aphids, a bare flash held close is huge compared to the subject so you really don't need a diffuser as much. For bigger and more mobile animals, like nursery spiders, crickets and butterflies, you can't get as close with your flash unit so effectively making it bigger with a flash softbox carries the similar effect as holding the flash very close. The softbox even helps a bit if you keep the flash in the hot shoe.

Total cost for both of these accessories: about $20-30 for the flash softbox and about $70 for the off camera cord.


Canon vs the Sigma. I am a really big fan of the Canon. I love the lens and would buy it again without thinking. But get the Sigma. Cost is an issue and more importantly for this lens, you are not sacrificing image quality.

In one word, no ;-)

I had the sigma and I sold it for the Canon...I really regret it; the canon has slightly better built quality, but image quality is the same (actually, the Sigma is a little better IMHO).

Kyle,

Another thing to consider. Do you need or want the working distance of the 150-180mm macro? You might want to check those specs as part of your purchase decision.

The 100mm macros are very versatile lenses and can be used as portrait lenses and shot telephoto lenses in addition to their primary purpose as a macro lens.

Then you could save your leftover funds in case you find another item that you'd like to purchase (for instance a fast prime for indoor photography, or a telephoto zoom)

Just some things to consider.

Mel-

Mel,
I already have the Canon 100-400 L for a zoom. I was thinking of the 180 because I want to get shots of insects and such, esp butterflies. The extra working distance will help here I think. The 180 will also work fine for the wildflower stuff I do as most all of my work is done in the woods, I don't feel I'll be overlensed there at all.

The 100mm is the same price with the hood and tripod ring as the 150, the 180 is only 200 more. I've got the funds so why not get the best for the money??

Feel free to set me straight here if needbe! I am only going on what I've learned on these threads.

Thanks!

Kyle, let's leave lens brand aside for a moment and discuss which macro focal length you really need. In the end it's of course up to you, and these conversations among photographers have a lot of value when you compare diverse experiences.

First of all, your 100-400 is excellent for full-figure butterflies and dragonflies. I use it for that all the time, as well as for some almost-macro work with single blooms or clusters of blooms. With an MFD of about six feet, I easily can fill or nearly fill the frame with a medium-sized butterfly and bloom with the zoom at 400mm, and can zoom back out in an instant to compose an environmental portrait. I worked with that lens for two years before I bought a true macro, and still use it for the things I described over the macro. That zoom at six feet and 400mm is a lot of working distance for skittish butterflies and dragonflies.

But I needed a macro for other floral work, and the 100 fit the bill. Partly that was money. But because the 100-400 did so well with my own style and subjects, I simply didn't need so much focal length in a macro. I also thought the 60mm was a bit short, so I opted for the 100.

I also use the 100, as mentioned, for portraits and some landscape work. When I shoot product work for clients of my spouse, who designs Web sites, I often pull out the 100 macro for detail shots as well. It's wicked sharp. And I've used it for indoor sports, where it's f2.8 max aperture makes it a decent lens for that type of thing as long as your panning technique is up to it. All around, it's a mighty versatile focal length, regardless of brand.

And, lastly, I do a lot of my macro work in the tight dense woods, and have run into situations where I didn't have room to back off far enough for the working distance of a 180, and the 100 was just right. In fact, there have been a few cases where even the WD of the 100 forced me tight against cover near my subject. When I want to get in even tighter with the 100 and get a subject larger in the frame, I slap on an extension tube or two.

Just a little more food for thought. You will of course come to a decision in time, and it will be a decision that most closely works for your needs, not mine.

As for brand, Tamron and Sigma make macros in the 90-100 range that are said to be as sharp as the Canon and may come with the tripod ring/hood complete, which may make them a better deal. I'm just going off reviews, as I've not used those lenses. And of course as already mentioned, those brands come in longer macro focal lengths as well and seem to be a great deal.

I also use the 430EX and off-camera shoe cord for some macro work. You can set the flash on manual and drop down to 1/64 of full power, so though I have a flash diffuser I rarely use it. I don't use flash much for macro anyway, generally relying on diffusion and reflection disks to get the light I want. But once in awhile a flash is necessary for my stuff. I know lots of macro folks use flash widely and do great work. Just a difference in styles and preferences.

Looks like you're going to be coming into all the lenses you'll need to do your work well, and then the time comes to get out there and have a blast learning all the ins and out of the gear.

I still use just three lenses for all my nature, realty, portrait, wedding and product work, and every time I think about spending money on more glass (well, leaving aside huge money for huge glass), I look at the 17-40, 100 macro and 100-400 in my bag and shrug and realize it's not lack of tools that will keep me from making art, but a lack of insight and inspiration.

Have fun!

Steve,
So will the 100-400 produce an image of a butterfly as good as the 180 macro??

Kyle, when you say "as good as" I assume sharpness is what you mean, because pretty much all the L series lenses are excellent at contrast and color saturation.

I'm just going off reviews on the 180, and the knowledge that primes are pretty much always sharper than zooms at equivalent focal lengths/apertures. So my guess is the 180 will be sharper than the zoom. I know my 100 macro is sharper than the zoom, and I think the fact is that whichever macro prime you buy will be sharper than the zoom, not just the 180.

And of course in this day of obsession with lens sharpness I may be castigated for this opinion, but razor sharpness isn't everything. The print-buying public, for example, hardly notices, and I've got images that still sell well from five years ago when I was just using a basic cheapo Tamron 70-300 macro zoom. My 100-400 is quite a bit more sharp than that old cheap Tamron, and when I've had problems selling images to glossy mags shot with the 100-400, it's not because they aren't sharp enough. It's because they aren't good enough.

Yeah...I agree on that point. Most people that look at my images don't notice my 100-400L vs. my $300 75-300 that I had prior.

I'm still bouncing back and forth between the Canon 100 and the Sigma 180. I totally understand what you are saying about the focal length. It's just hard to know what will be best for me without using the lenses before I purchase them and there isn't anywhere I can rent them before I buy one.

I'm going to give it a couple more days, prob closer to a week, to think it over. I just want the macro before wildflower season begins!!

Thanks for your help, and any other tips you all can give me is much appreciated.

Thanks!!

My only other tip would be to remember that, whichever lens you settle on, the ones mentioned hold resale value very well, so if you find after getting it out in the field and using it for a season that you've gotten the "wrong" lens, you should be able to get most of your money back selling it as a mint used lens and put those dollars toward the "right" lens.

All the opinions in the world are good to get, but cannot be substituted for actual use.

Hey Klye, another way to go would be the Sigma 150 macro which cost less then the 180, and is supposed to be sharper shooting than the 180. You could add on a 1.4 teleconverter for the extra working distance on the critter shots.

Does the Canon 180 come with the tripod ring??

Yes, but not a hood.

Steve, are you sure about the hood? Mine came with one.

I really hate that I can't rent these lenses and try them out before buying one!! I don't think there is really anything else I can learn about these lenses. Now it's just time to decide which one I think I'd prefer.

I am still leaning towards the longer focal length. I don't think the Canon 180 is worth the money, I can save the extra cash I would have spent on that lens and get a new body this year if I wanted, Canon XSI maybe! All in all, whatever I use the extra money on, I think it's better spent on something else when I can get the Sigma 180 or 150 at almost half price.

I still feel that Canon 100 is not enough focal length as well. I know I will lose some versatility with a longer focal length lens but I think I'll need it in shooting images of smaller insects and such. I'd rather be able to do that easier than to be too close and constantly scare them off.

That puts me up to my final decision....150 or 180?? The 150 is a 2.8 and the 180 is a 3.5, I don't think that makes much of a difference. The 180 is 200 bucks more....are 3 more inches of minimum focusing distance worth 200 bucks?? I really don't think so, but then again, I've not tried both lenses out to really know the truth.

That's where I stand right now, I'm sure I'll change my mind another few times before I take the plunge though!!!

Why can't there just be ONE macro lens out there, that would make this choice MUCH easier!!

Thanks for all of your help everyone.

My tax return should get back to me in about a week, that's when I'm going to order all of this gear. Is there anything that I'm missing?? Should I get a good flash for my camera or something as well? I was also thinking about the Canon Angle Finder C, I think this would help me with macro work, what do you all think of that little contraption? Anything else??

Thanks!!

Dan, I was going off two Web stores I buy from. In the category "includes" that goes with each product, there was no mention of a hood. I went back and looked and, in a different category, they both specify a hood is included.

Thanks for the correction! I hate giving out inaccurate info.

Also...the finishes look different on the 180 at the B&H photo site and the Adorama site...what's up with that?

Also, with my 1.6 crop body, does my magnification increase at my minimum focal length, do I get a 1:1 image farther back than the minimum focal length?

Thanks!

Anybody?

Kyle, the quick (although not technically correct) answer to both of your last questions is yes. It is a good way in practice to think about things.

Technically, the magnification of the macro at minimum focus is still 1:1. However, for practical purposes, you'll still print from a full frame or cropped sensor to 8x12 (or what ever size). When looked at it from this perspective, the magnification is 1.6:1 rather than 1:1. Remember, when you print an 8x12 from 35 mm or a full frame digital body, this is an 8x increase in size from the recording medium, while printing an 8x12 from an APS sized size is something like a 13x increase in size from the recording medium. The net effect to the viewer is more magnification.

The cropped sensor also allows you to reach a full-frame image from further away, or for your purposes, reach 1:1 with more working distance.

Thanks!! I think I've made my mind up. I'm going to go with the Sigma 180. How come the 180 looks different on B&H and Adorama? On B&H it looks to have a different pebbled finish type and some metal around the focusing distance adjustment box. On Adorama it looks like the finish is a smooth black and there is no stainless.

I called Adorama and they said the photo is probably not updated but that their model is the current one (newest) so I should be fine wherever I order from.