Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro
Discussion
5 replies
Posted by Jim Greenwood on July 16, 2009 at 10:27 PM
I'm primarily a landscape photographer. I've never owned a macro lens, and I've never really done any macro photography. But I've been thinking about getting a macro lens so I can devote some time and effort to it on occasion. I've been reading up, so I'm pretty much aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the 100mm and the 180mm compared to each other, and the reasons to opt for either one. Setting aside all of that, as well as the obvious price difference, I do have a few question. I'd be very grateful for some feedback from you devoted macro enthusiasts, or from those who are more casual about it as I would most likely be.
1. The main thing I’m interested in getting a feel for is this. If you own (or have owned) both a medium focal length macro such as the 100mm and a long focal length macro such as the 180mm, is there one that you naturally tend to use more often and why? Or if you just have a medium focal length macro, do you frequently find yourself wishing that you could get more and better images using a long focal length macro? Or alternatively, if you just have a long focal length macro, do you more often feel that a medium focal length macro would result in more and better images?
2. The Canon 180mm macro is an L Series lens, whereas the Canon 100mm macro is not. With a Canon 5D Mark II (21.1 megapixel full-frame sensor) or similar body, do you think that the lower quality of the Canon 100mm macro would result in noticeably diminished image quality?
3. I’ve also been spending a little time in the NPN Macro & Close-up Gallery. I notice that for the vast majority of images an insect is the primary element or even the only element. This would most likely not be my penchant. I think I’d be more interested in photographing wildflowers or other minute flora, sans insects. Do you think, given this subject matter, that a macro lens (either the 100mm or the 180mm) would still be a worthwhile investment? Or, using appropriate techniques, could I do just as well with a good telephoto zoom lens (which I already have)?
4. I almost always use a tripod for landscape photography. Does macro photography lend itself as naturally to tripod use, or do you find a tripod to be more of a hindrance in the macro realm?
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on July 16, 2009 at 11:27 PM
First, with regards to quality, there are no bad currently manufactured macro lenses from a major company. You will be choosing from various degrees of excellent rather than excellent and very good, so don't worry about image quality from a lens.
Now for the choice between a 180 and a 100.
The 100 is not an L lens. Don't worry about that. All it means, in this case, is that it does not have any flourite glass in it. Image quality is on par with that of the 180 or any other macro. It does not suffer from the non-L lesser builds.
The 100 does not come with a lens collar. It is about another $150 and you will need it. In landscapes, moving the lens 2" doesn't affect the composition. To move a 100 mm macro 2" to swing it from a vertical to a horizontal means an entirely different composition and with something like an insect, missing the shot as it flies away. For floral photography, the subject won't be running away from you, but you never know when you'll need to quickly flip between the two orientations.
Another downside to the Canon 100 is that teleconvertors are not directly compatible with the lens. You'll need to put a teleconvertor between the lens and the extender to make it work. This isn't a problem at macro distances but if you stand up and decide to shot a landscape from where you are standing, you'll need to remove the extension tube.
Working distance: The 180 has a lot longer working distance. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing, depending on the situation. If later you decide to shoot insects, this working distance will keep from scaring the subject. Also, if you are at an odd angle to a flower, being able to back up and keep the same magnification means that you may be able to get the sensor more parallel to the subject (smaller f-stop = faster shutter speed or laarger f-stop for more DOF covering more of the flower). This, however, can also be a weakness. I also do a lot of shooting indoors and have found that I can back up enough to use my 180, especially with a cropped sensor. A 100 is a better choice here. (The explanation as to why I have a lot of really tight butterfly shots from conservatories).
Background:
The 180 will take in a lot less of the background. The net effect is that it is far easier to get those smooth, blurry backgrounds you often see. It is *not* a function of DOF.
DOF:
Tie. You'll often see that a wide angle lens has more DOF than a telephoto at the same f-stop. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. A telephoto has exactly the same DOF as a wide angle, at the same f-stop, IF THE MAGNIFICATION RATIO IS IDENTICAL. The reason you'll see the comment about DOF on wide angles is because the subject magnification is allowed to change. You'll see pictures of something shot at 10 meters, with a 24mm and a 200 mm lens, shot from the same distance, and yes the DOF is different. But the subject distance doesn't change, so the magnification increases. Keep that in mind whether yo choose a 100 or the 180.
Speed of focussing:
Niether lens is good. That is the nature of the beast. You'll be on manual focus most of the time, so don't let reviews that complain about this worry you.
Handholding:
The 100, no question. The 180 is heavy and long. DOF is very narrow once you get near 1:1 and the 180 just is asking too much of my arms. The 100 wins easily here. Having said that, you'll stil probably need full flash to handhold near 1:1. Near macro distances, the rule of 1/(focal length) is, at a minimum, 1/(twice focal length).
Value
I really can't answer that question. I live and die on the 180, simply because of working distance for insects. Both of them are good values, but have slightly different pros and cons. Overall, it is probably a tie.
Tripod
If you at all can use a tripod, do so. Macro makes this even more of a necessity. DOF is so tight that only a tripod will allow for the precision in focussing needed. Handholding any macro lens will be a crapshoot for success, although I'll admit that sometimes it is needed. Waiting for the wind to die down is even more common than in landscape. You'll quickly discover the difference between still and dead still. Still = landscapes + macro "hurricane" Handholding until dead still happens quickly means tired arms.
So which lens to pick: I would favor the 180 for working distance and background control.
A suggestion: Try looking at the Sigmas. I'll grant you that they are not as solidly built but they are less expensive. Sharpness, as I said above, is not an issue. I've seen evidence that the Sigma 150 is sharper than the Canon 180 and the Canon is the lens a I work with most often. If this is going to be an occasional lens for you and not a workhorse, it might be worth it to go to a third party like Sigma.
1. 180 or 100? It's personal pref. For me 180 is too strong and I can't get in close enough for most of the flower work that I do. 180 is the perfect focal length for laying in a blind shooting ducks as they swim by at 6 feet IMO, for example.
3. The image sharpness, lack of distortion, and beautiful bokeh of a macro lens for the purpose of close-ups CANNOT be matched by a zoom IMO, primarily because the macro is a prime lens. The only way I'd use one of my telephoto zooms for that work is if my macro is unavailable.
4. If I'm using a macro/ring flash, a tripod is usually unnecessary. If I'm not, a tripod is indispensable. A typical shot is going to be focused in at near 1:1 ratio, in other words, max magnification, where the slightest wiggle will ruin the picture. Not to mention you'll often be cranked down to about f/16 or more to get all those flower parts sharp, so your shutter will be real slow. For me hand held is rarely an option for macro work.
The short answer to all your questions is: Get a Tamron 90-mm macro lens and just enjoy taking pictures of flowers and having saved some money. (Or put the money saved into a geared head for your tripod legs and have the ultimate setup.) But in the order of your questions...
1. I have a Tamron 90 macro and a 70-180 Micro Nikkor. The Tamron is the lightest of the medium-length macro lenses, and a delight to hand-hold. The Micro Nikkor is within 2 ounces of the Tamron & Sigma 180 macro lenses (but 3 oz lighter than the Canon); I can handhold it for a few shots, but when I'm using it I always have a monopod or tripod with me --I have to. The long end of the Micro Nikkor is better for bugs, but for flowers I almost always use it at the shorter end; unless you intend to concentrate on small, individual flowers and abstracts of parts of flowers for your usual subjects, I strongly recommend the medium-length lens.
2. "Everybody" says that the major-brand macro lenses, whatever the length and specifics of the glass, will give you excellent images that are difficult to impossible to differentiate even pixel-peeping at 400%. The Sigma 180 is built not quite so well as the Canon, but it is a well-made lens. Recently, Sigma seems to be having quality-control problems (and Canon is not exempt from them, either), so the best for the money right now is probably the Tamron 180; its quality is equivalent to the others'.
3. If you want to try close-up photography with a normal zoom lens, you'd have to use a diopter auxiliary lens to be able to focus close enough, and the Canon and Nikon diopters cost about $200 each. Raynox diopters that will fit the ~72-mm filter thread of most zooms are not much cheaper. (These three brands are multi-element and coated = very good image quality, but much better with a prime lens, and how good depends on the zoom lens.) If you want to do close-up and macro photography of flora, I think a medium-length macro lens will be much more satisfactory to use and almost surely will produce better images.
4. For insects, hand-holding and using flash to freeze the inevitable kinds of blur is more convenient, and a tripod frequently gets in the way. For flowers, a tripod is a necessity for the longer macro lenses, but if you're using a ~100-mm lens it's up to you: with a tripod, you'll frame more deliberately and without one you'll probably take more pictures with different compositions --this is a win-win kind of dilemma. I love the convenience of the tripod-collar on the Micro Nikkor, but I have been meaning to get one for my Tamron 90 (third-party collars made for the Canon 100 will fit and are inexpensive) for a very long time . . . so I guess I don't find it essential.
(Re tripods and macro, you'll notice pretty soon that any head but a geared one will let the camera and lens "settle" or "droop" after you tighten the head and let go of the lens; it may be only a couple of millimeters, but that's a major shift when you're at or near 1:1 magnification, and it's extremely frustrating. A geared head (Bogen-Manfrotto 410 "Jr" is sturdy enough even for use with 180 lenses) makes tripod work in the macro world a real joy.)
Jim, I have the EF 100/2.8 USM macro and find it to be one of my most used lenses, from macro work to portraits and everything in between. In terms of image quality, it gives up nothing to any other macro lens.
I agree that the 180 is better suited to purely macro work, but IMO the 100 is a far better "jack of all trades." I use a Kirk L-bracket on my 50D so the lack of a tripod collar is a non-issue.
A variety of photos below, all taken over the last 5 years with the 100 -
Jim: I can't speak to the specifics of the optics of the two lenses you're considering but I will tell you that I absolutely love my 100mm macro. It was my favorite lens and is still the sharpest in my bag. Notice the past tense of the verb. Since I graduated to a 200mm the 100 rarely comes out of the bag. Working distance, tripod collar, narrower angle of view all make the 200mm the resident lens on my camera. It lives on a tripod. The only time I take it off is if I'm chasing a butterfly or dragonfly. My recommendation is for the longer focal length. Do look at the Sigma 180. There are some folks on the Flora gallery who do amazing things with that lens. >=))>
PS: You might e-mail Mike Moats. I believe he has both the 150 and 180 Sigma.
Discussion
5 replies1. The main thing I’m interested in getting a feel for is this. If you own (or have owned) both a medium focal length macro such as the 100mm and a long focal length macro such as the 180mm, is there one that you naturally tend to use more often and why? Or if you just have a medium focal length macro, do you frequently find yourself wishing that you could get more and better images using a long focal length macro? Or alternatively, if you just have a long focal length macro, do you more often feel that a medium focal length macro would result in more and better images?
2. The Canon 180mm macro is an L Series lens, whereas the Canon 100mm macro is not. With a Canon 5D Mark II (21.1 megapixel full-frame sensor) or similar body, do you think that the lower quality of the Canon 100mm macro would result in noticeably diminished image quality?
3. I’ve also been spending a little time in the NPN Macro & Close-up Gallery. I notice that for the vast majority of images an insect is the primary element or even the only element. This would most likely not be my penchant. I think I’d be more interested in photographing wildflowers or other minute flora, sans insects. Do you think, given this subject matter, that a macro lens (either the 100mm or the 180mm) would still be a worthwhile investment? Or, using appropriate techniques, could I do just as well with a good telephoto zoom lens (which I already have)?
4. I almost always use a tripod for landscape photography. Does macro photography lend itself as naturally to tripod use, or do you find a tripod to be more of a hindrance in the macro realm?
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Now for the choice between a 180 and a 100.
The 100 is not an L lens. Don't worry about that. All it means, in this case, is that it does not have any flourite glass in it. Image quality is on par with that of the 180 or any other macro. It does not suffer from the non-L lesser builds.
The 100 does not come with a lens collar. It is about another $150 and you will need it. In landscapes, moving the lens 2" doesn't affect the composition. To move a 100 mm macro 2" to swing it from a vertical to a horizontal means an entirely different composition and with something like an insect, missing the shot as it flies away. For floral photography, the subject won't be running away from you, but you never know when you'll need to quickly flip between the two orientations.
Another downside to the Canon 100 is that teleconvertors are not directly compatible with the lens. You'll need to put a teleconvertor between the lens and the extender to make it work. This isn't a problem at macro distances but if you stand up and decide to shot a landscape from where you are standing, you'll need to remove the extension tube.
Working distance: The 180 has a lot longer working distance. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing, depending on the situation. If later you decide to shoot insects, this working distance will keep from scaring the subject. Also, if you are at an odd angle to a flower, being able to back up and keep the same magnification means that you may be able to get the sensor more parallel to the subject (smaller f-stop = faster shutter speed or laarger f-stop for more DOF covering more of the flower). This, however, can also be a weakness. I also do a lot of shooting indoors and have found that I can back up enough to use my 180, especially with a cropped sensor. A 100 is a better choice here. (The explanation as to why I have a lot of really tight butterfly shots from conservatories).
Background:
The 180 will take in a lot less of the background. The net effect is that it is far easier to get those smooth, blurry backgrounds you often see. It is *not* a function of DOF.
DOF:
Tie. You'll often see that a wide angle lens has more DOF than a telephoto at the same f-stop. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. A telephoto has exactly the same DOF as a wide angle, at the same f-stop, IF THE MAGNIFICATION RATIO IS IDENTICAL. The reason you'll see the comment about DOF on wide angles is because the subject magnification is allowed to change. You'll see pictures of something shot at 10 meters, with a 24mm and a 200 mm lens, shot from the same distance, and yes the DOF is different. But the subject distance doesn't change, so the magnification increases. Keep that in mind whether yo choose a 100 or the 180.
Speed of focussing:
Niether lens is good. That is the nature of the beast. You'll be on manual focus most of the time, so don't let reviews that complain about this worry you.
Handholding:
The 100, no question. The 180 is heavy and long. DOF is very narrow once you get near 1:1 and the 180 just is asking too much of my arms. The 100 wins easily here. Having said that, you'll stil probably need full flash to handhold near 1:1. Near macro distances, the rule of 1/(focal length) is, at a minimum, 1/(twice focal length).
Value
I really can't answer that question. I live and die on the 180, simply because of working distance for insects. Both of them are good values, but have slightly different pros and cons. Overall, it is probably a tie.
Tripod
If you at all can use a tripod, do so. Macro makes this even more of a necessity. DOF is so tight that only a tripod will allow for the precision in focussing needed. Handholding any macro lens will be a crapshoot for success, although I'll admit that sometimes it is needed. Waiting for the wind to die down is even more common than in landscape. You'll quickly discover the difference between still and dead still. Still = landscapes + macro "hurricane" Handholding until dead still happens quickly means tired arms.
So which lens to pick: I would favor the 180 for working distance and background control.
A suggestion: Try looking at the Sigmas. I'll grant you that they are not as solidly built but they are less expensive. Sharpness, as I said above, is not an issue. I've seen evidence that the Sigma 150 is sharper than the Canon 180 and the Canon is the lens a I work with most often. If this is going to be an occasional lens for you and not a workhorse, it might be worth it to go to a third party like Sigma.
3. The image sharpness, lack of distortion, and beautiful bokeh of a macro lens for the purpose of close-ups CANNOT be matched by a zoom IMO, primarily because the macro is a prime lens. The only way I'd use one of my telephoto zooms for that work is if my macro is unavailable.
4. If I'm using a macro/ring flash, a tripod is usually unnecessary. If I'm not, a tripod is indispensable. A typical shot is going to be focused in at near 1:1 ratio, in other words, max magnification, where the slightest wiggle will ruin the picture. Not to mention you'll often be cranked down to about f/16 or more to get all those flower parts sharp, so your shutter will be real slow. For me hand held is rarely an option for macro work.
The short answer to all your questions is: Get a Tamron 90-mm macro lens and just enjoy taking pictures of flowers and having saved some money. (Or put the money saved into a geared head for your tripod legs and have the ultimate setup.) But in the order of your questions...
1. I have a Tamron 90 macro and a 70-180 Micro Nikkor. The Tamron is the lightest of the medium-length macro lenses, and a delight to hand-hold. The Micro Nikkor is within 2 ounces of the Tamron & Sigma 180 macro lenses (but 3 oz lighter than the Canon); I can handhold it for a few shots, but when I'm using it I always have a monopod or tripod with me --I have to. The long end of the Micro Nikkor is better for bugs, but for flowers I almost always use it at the shorter end; unless you intend to concentrate on small, individual flowers and abstracts of parts of flowers for your usual subjects, I strongly recommend the medium-length lens.
2. "Everybody" says that the major-brand macro lenses, whatever the length and specifics of the glass, will give you excellent images that are difficult to impossible to differentiate even pixel-peeping at 400%. The Sigma 180 is built not quite so well as the Canon, but it is a well-made lens. Recently, Sigma seems to be having quality-control problems (and Canon is not exempt from them, either), so the best for the money right now is probably the Tamron 180; its quality is equivalent to the others'.
3. If you want to try close-up photography with a normal zoom lens, you'd have to use a diopter auxiliary lens to be able to focus close enough, and the Canon and Nikon diopters cost about $200 each. Raynox diopters that will fit the ~72-mm filter thread of most zooms are not much cheaper. (These three brands are multi-element and coated = very good image quality, but much better with a prime lens, and how good depends on the zoom lens.) If you want to do close-up and macro photography of flora, I think a medium-length macro lens will be much more satisfactory to use and almost surely will produce better images.
4. For insects, hand-holding and using flash to freeze the inevitable kinds of blur is more convenient, and a tripod frequently gets in the way. For flowers, a tripod is a necessity for the longer macro lenses, but if you're using a ~100-mm lens it's up to you: with a tripod, you'll frame more deliberately and without one you'll probably take more pictures with different compositions --this is a win-win kind of dilemma. I love the convenience of the tripod-collar on the Micro Nikkor, but I have been meaning to get one for my Tamron 90 (third-party collars made for the Canon 100 will fit and are inexpensive) for a very long time . . . so I guess I don't find it essential.
(Re tripods and macro, you'll notice pretty soon that any head but a geared one will let the camera and lens "settle" or "droop" after you tighten the head and let go of the lens; it may be only a couple of millimeters, but that's a major shift when you're at or near 1:1 magnification, and it's extremely frustrating. A geared head (Bogen-Manfrotto 410 "Jr" is sturdy enough even for use with 180 lenses) makes tripod work in the macro world a real joy.)
I agree that the 180 is better suited to purely macro work, but IMO the 100 is a far better "jack of all trades." I use a Kirk L-bracket on my 50D so the lack of a tripod collar is a non-issue.
A variety of photos below, all taken over the last 5 years with the 100 -
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=111419&ns=1
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/butterfly-1.jpg
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/butterfly-2.jpg
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/holidaytablesetting-1.jpg
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/wheelerpond-1.jpg
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/Salvia-1.jpg
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/EricLiz-1.jpg
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/lizana.jpg
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/WRX-20.jpg
http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/fxtsnow-1.jpg
PS: You might e-mail Mike Moats. I believe he has both the 150 and 180 Sigma.