Help me choose Canon Lenses - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/30/2008 01:39:59 PM · #1

Attempting to decide which way to go. Any input would be GREAT.

Buy the EF180 f3.5L macro usm
or
Buy the EF100mm f2.8 macro and the EF 70 - 200mm f4.0L usm

I am really after a great macro lens

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

05/30/2008 01:44:17 PM · #2

That's really a no-brainer: the 100mm f/2.8 is a world-class macro lens, the 70-200mm f/4L is a world-class zoom lens. If you were shooting on a full-frame camera (Canon 5D) then the 180mm might possibly be a more useful macro length for you, but it's awfully longish for the APS-C sensors IMO.

R.

ryand

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

05/30/2008 01:53:21 PM · #3

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

ditto, those were the exact words I had planned on using.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

05/30/2008 02:42:04 PM · #4

I agree in large part with the previous posters. The 180/3.5 *is* a slightly better lens from an optical quality standpoint, but the 100/2.8 macro is a very, very good lens, and a good focal length on an APS-C body. The one use that I *don't* fully recommend it for is astrophotography on 35mm frame. It's a great astro lens on APS-C.

05/30/2008 03:05:48 PM · #5

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's really a no-brainer: the 100mm f/2.8 is a world-class macro lens, the 70-200mm f/4L is a world-class zoom lens.

I agree, although if you're seriously into macro, there's also the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8- a manual focus lens capable of up to 5X the magnification of the other lenses you mentioned.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/30/2008 03:37:03 PM · #6

I agree with everyone.

I've always (in my head) lumped the 180mm macro in with the "specialty" lenses that only a pro in that specific field would buy - like the 65mm macro, the tilt-shift lenses, etc.

mpeters

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/30/2008 03:45:42 PM · #7

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's really a no-brainer: the 100mm f/2.8 is a world-class macro lens, the 70-200mm f/4L is a world-class zoom lens.

I agree, although if you're seriously into macro, there's also the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8- a manual focus lens capable of up to 5X the magnification of the other lenses you mentioned.

Ignorance alert here-- Why? I always thought that the magnification power was related to focal length. Apparantly not...

05/30/2008 03:53:06 PM · #8

Originally posted by mpeters:

I always thought that the magnification power was related to focal length. Apparantly not...

True macro lenses typically have a maximum magnification of 1:1 (the lens will project an actual-size image on your sensor). The Canon 100mm and 180mm both have a maximum magnification of 1:1- the only real difference is the distance to the subject at minimum focus (and DOF as a result). Unless I'm mistaken, the Canon MP-E 65mm works like a bellows lens to allow even more magnification by changing the distance between the lens and camera body (sort of like a continuous set of extension tubes).

mpeters

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/30/2008 03:59:02 PM · #9

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mpeters:
I always thought that the magnification power was related to focal length. Apparantly not...

True macro lenses typically have a maximum magnification of 1:1 (the lens will project an actual-size image on your sensor). The Canon 100mm and 180mm both have a maximum magnification of 1:1- the only real difference is the distance to the subject at minimum focus (and DOF as a result). Unless I'm mistaken, the Canon MP-E 65mm works like a bellows lens to allow even more magnification by changing the distance between the lens and camera body (sort of like a continuous set of extension tubes).

Ahh, so the MP-E 65mm is specific to macro use--I missed the MP-E part and was thinking of the Canon 60mm EF-S. The MP-E looks pretty handy but i'm thinking it's not real useful for portraits. :)

05/30/2008 04:02:15 PM · #10

Originally posted by mpeters:

The MP-E looks pretty handy but i'm thinking it's not real useful for portraits. :)

Only really, really close ones.... poretraits. ;-)

mpeters

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/30/2008 04:03:09 PM · #11

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mpeters:
The MP-E looks pretty handy but i'm thinking it's not real useful for portraits. :)

Only really, really close ones.... poretraits. ;-)

With this lens I can fill my frame with one of your nose hairs. I can see print sales taking a dive. :P

eta-- saw poretraits and read portraits. I'm slow.

Message edited by author 2008-05-30 16:03:56.

PhotoRyno

05/30/2008 04:37:39 PM · #12

Originally posted by ryand:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you were shooting on a full-frame camera (Canon 5D) then the 180mm might possibly be a more useful macro length for you, but it's awfully longish for the APS-C sensors IMO.

R.

ditto, those were the exact words I had planned on using.

Bear_Music I do shoot with a 5d. Any additional thoughts about the 180 vs 100 being more useful with the full frame. Would the 180 be much better?

05/30/2008 04:49:55 PM · #13

Originally posted by PhotoRyno:

Would the 180 be much better?

The 180 would allow you to shoot something like live bugs from a greater distance. Otherwise...

brownsm