Canon 180mm Macro vs. 100mm Macro

01/28/2009 07:01:23 PM · #1

Which performs best... Canon's EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro or the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro?

Anyone with experience using both lenses is welcomed to comment. Here are the concerns I would like addressed:

EF 180mm f/3.5 USM Macro
Likes: True "L" lens, you don't have to be as close to subject, greater no-macro functionality
Dislikes: Shallower DOF, great weight, slow autofocus, high price

EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro
Likes: greater DOF, lighter, low price, faster lens
Dislikes: non-"L", possible lower quality optics and construction and poorer quality images.

What I am interested in is a comparison of the two lenses by people that have worked with both. Which do you like best and why? And if it means anything, the lens will be used mostly on a "full frame" 35mm digital camera.

Please, do not suggest that if I want a faster, cheaper, lighter lens with greater DOF that I should go with the 100mm. I can figure that out for myself.

For me image quality is of paramount importance but easy of use and functionality are nearly as important. I am mostly interested in those lenses for their macro functionality and the nature of my photography would probably involve a fair amount of hand held shots taken while chasing elusive subjects in the wild.

ralph

Nikon Z9

01/28/2009 07:09:51 PM · #2

i think you are fooling yourself if you think you can hand hold the 180mm
from my persective (nikon 200mm & 105mm) the 200mm is a much better lens but i don't think about hand holding it , 105mm is hard enough to hold still...

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

01/28/2009 07:27:28 PM · #3

Originally posted by Artifacts:

a fair amount of hand held shots taken while chasing elusive subjects in the wild.

That probably points to the 180mm. The working distance is over 50% more than the 100mm (9.5 inches from the end of the lens vs. 6.0). That can make a difference with bugs.

I own the 180mm and have worked only a bit with the 100mm. The 100mm definitely feels "cheaper".

There's a decent comparison here.

Personally I would worry less about the AF. They are both slow (as all macros are), but I use manual focus for about 90% of my macro work. AF just hunts and pecks too much.

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

01/28/2009 07:28:16 PM · #4

Canon just put the L on the 180 because it costs a bajillion. All macro lenses have stellar optics.

01/28/2009 07:37:16 PM · #5

Originally posted by ralph:

I am with you all the way on the issue of hand held photography.

In my world "hand held" often includes laying flat on the ground using elbows, rocks and tree branches as a makeshift tripod and, if standing upright, using tree trunks, rock faces and other naturally occurring things as brace-like tripods. My subjects sometimes are not cooperative enough to remain still while I set up a regular tripod and wind can be a problem to. :)

On the plus side all the ladies seem to think I have a steady hand, if you get my drift. ;) ;)

trevytrev

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/28/2009 07:39:32 PM · #6

Originally posted by Artifacts:

On the plus side all the ladies seem to think I have a steady hand, if you get my drift. ;) ;)

Could you elaborate?....=)

ralph

Nikon Z9

01/28/2009 07:51:28 PM · #7

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Artifacts:

On the plus side all the ladies seem to think I have a steady hand, if you get my drift. ;) ;)

Could you elaborate?....=)

pictures? ;}

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/28/2009 07:51:55 PM · #8

Personally, I'd get the 100. There's no way I could hand hold a 180, even laying flat on the ground. I can't really hand hold my Nikon 105 very well, and it has VR. But you're more manly than I am, so you might be able to do better ;-)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/28/2009 08:03:03 PM · #9

When you're focused at 1:1, on a given spot in the subject, with a given physical aperture (not f/stop), the DOF is identical between two lenses regardless of their focal length. This actually holds true for any reproduction ratio, but it's most obvious when working true macro. So the controlling factor for DOF in macro images is the physical diameter of the aperture, *not* the focal length of the lens. Where it goes variable on you is in how, the shorter the lens, the smaller the diameter of a given f/stop is. So, for example, between a 50mm macro lens and a 100mm macro lens, both focused on the fly's eye and both at 1:1 reproduction ratio, and both set with a 12.5mm aperture, the DOF is identical but the f/stop on the 50mm lens is f/4 and the f/stop on the 100mm lens is f/8, so the shorter the lens the faster the shutter speed you can use for a given DOF, or, contrariwise, for a given shutter speed the more DOF you can get.

These concerns tend to be minimized when working with a tripod. If handheld, extreme macro is what you want, then the shorter lens will work better for you, usually.

R.

01/28/2009 08:06:31 PM · #10

With macro lenses shallow DOF is often your worst enemy. The shorter focal length of the 100 gives greater DOF. I really like that part.

Anyone care to comment on the DOF issue between the two lenses?

As always the good doctor weighs in with pertinent comments. I'm a manual focus kinda guy anyway so I won't worry about AF speed. However, quality construction and sealing of the optical elements is the strength of the "L" series and that is important when you are out in the wilds where things can get rough.

But, Doc, the 100mm is a lot less expensive and is a faster lens! Not all of us have a thriving practice to support our camera addiction. LOL!!!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Artifacts:
a fair amount of hand held shots taken while chasing elusive subjects in the wild.

That probably points to the 180mm. The working distance is over 50% more than the 100mm (9.5 inches from the end of the lens vs. 6.0). That can make a difference with bugs.

I own the 180mm and have worked only a bit with the 100mm. The 100mm definitely feels "cheaper".

There's a decent comparison here.

Personally I would worry less about the AF. They are both slow (as all macros are), but I use manual focus for about 90% of my macro work. AF just hunts and pecks too much.

Message edited by author 2009-01-28 20:07:02.

01/28/2009 08:10:41 PM · #11

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Artifacts:

On the plus side all the ladies seem to think I have a steady hand, if you get my drift. ;) ;)

Could you elaborate?....=)

I would but modesty and propriety dictates otherwise. I must vigorously protect the honor of my fair ladies. :)

01/28/2009 08:13:48 PM · #12

Originally posted by Ann:

Why, Ann... please... don't reveal to everyone our secrets revealing how you know I'm "manly". LOL!!

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

01/28/2009 08:23:06 PM · #13

With both lenses, true 1:1 is only obtained at the lens's minimum focusing distance, so the longer lens will allow you to shoot from a greater distance. This can be a big advantage when working with skittish subjects like insects. Of course you can always glue the subjects to a flower. ;D

gwsallen

Nikon D300

01/29/2009 02:02:44 AM · #14

I will go for Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 - speed & 2.8 requirement.

Find good reviews on this lens here //astore.amazon.com/cameras-photos-videos-20/detail/B00004XOM3

Chinarosepetal

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

01/29/2009 02:31:48 AM · #15

I have both lenses and use them regularly on a full frame camera. Why do I choose to use one over the other on a particular day? I rarely handhold for macro work - but if I do it would be the 100mm. If I have plenty of time or more importantly my subject has plenty of time (ie maybe plant rather than insect) I'll use the 180mm.
The 180mm is a more demanding lens, it is heavier, it does need a tripod collar , mirror lock up and a cable release if your image is to be acceptable at commercial levels. The 100mm is less demanding but will produce a very acceptable commercial standard image. The difference I notice is a creamier, richer, more gorgeous background in my 180mm, the image as a whole just looks a fraction better - but still very, very acceptable with the 100mm. Overall, you've more chance of getting the very best picture with the 180mm, but you've more chance of getting an acceptable picture with the 100mm ;)

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

01/29/2009 04:26:09 AM · #16

Originally posted by Chinarosepetal:

If you don't mind me asking, which of the two did you buy first? Since you rarely hand-hold, do you normally use a focusing rail on a tripod, just a tripod, or something else? What about extension tubes? Do you ever use them, and, if so, which ones?

Chinarosepetal

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

01/29/2009 05:15:47 AM · #17

Hi Mick - interesting question, I got the 180mm first, but I really missed the ease of use of the 60mm EFS lens from the old 20D days (an excellent lens) so I got the 100mm really for those more spontaneous or difficult to set up shots :) Yes, I use a focusing rail and no I don't use extension tubes.

01/29/2009 10:06:03 AM · #18

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Robert... you always get me to thinking about things and then researching stuff I thought I already understood. :)

I'm probably misunderstanding something from optical physics that you explained, but I'm unsure I agree that at 1:1 magnification at the same f/stop value that pictures taken by the 100mm and 180mm macro lenses will have the same DOF. Here is my reasoning:

There are three primary factors that affect DOF. They are:
1-Distance to subject
2-Aperture(roughly equivalent to f/stop)
3-Focal length

Lens focal length has the greatest effect. Somewhere in the math is something like the square of the focal length divided by a scale factor of focal length that comes into play for figuring DOF. That is why short focal length wide angle lenses have a nearly infinite DOF regardless of aperture or distance to subject. Unless I'm mistaken it does not matter if you are in macro or not, the 3 factors determining DOF remain the same.

The distance to subject at 1:1 for the 100mm is 6" and for the 180mm it is 9.5", roughly 1.5 times further away. That means the 180mm has more DOF resulting from greater distance to subject at 1:1 magnification. However, the focal length of the 180 is almost twice that of the 100mm giving the 100mm greater DOF because of it's shorter focal length which has greater influence in overall DOF.

Near the bottom of the following article are comparison pictures taken of the same flower subject with 3 different macro lenses - 180mm, 100mm and 60mm. All three are taken at the same f/stop value so aperture effects on DOF have been minimized. As you can see, at 1:1 magnification you can distinguish more of the BG in the shorter focal length lenses. That can only happen if the overall DOF of the shorter focal length lenses is greater than the 180mm:
Compare 180mm and 100mm Macro DOF in Images

Where did I go awry in my thinking?

Originally posted by Chinarosepetal:

Thanks for your comparison on the two lenses. This cuts to the heart of the issue for me.

01/29/2009 04:04:22 PM · #19

Originally posted by Chinarosepetal:

I've had the 100mm lens for a while and I think it's a great lens. I've often thought about buying the 180mm, but I don't shoot enough macro to justify the expense. Maybe some day that will change. I think I may be buying a focusing rail soon though.

Thanks!

01/29/2009 04:11:04 PM · #20

I recently discovered that the 180mm lens can be used with Canon's 1.4x and 2x TCs to increase the maximum magnification of the lens. The 1.4 extender makes it a 252mm 1.4:1 macro lens and the 2x makes it a 360mm 2:1 macro lens. Unfortunately, neither TC is compatible with the 100mm lens.

Just another point you may want to consider. :)

lifeafter2am

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/29/2009 04:13:05 PM · #21

Originally posted by Mick:

Personally I think this point is null on the Canon system because we have the MP-E anyway, which will take you all the way to 5:1.

I have read in many places that the 100mm is one of the sharpest lenses that Canon makes, and I, personally, have not once been disappointed by it.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/29/2009 04:15:24 PM · #22

Originally posted by Artifacts:

...Where did I go awry in my thinking?

Steve,
From the page you linked:

The 180mm lens shows only a small physical area of background subject that is compressed/enlarged to magnify the blur. Background subjects in the 60mm picture appear to be more in focus. They are not - they are just about as blurred, but they appear much smaller in the picture

This is the critical thing, the angle of view plays in to hwo the background blur is rendered.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/29/2009 04:15:32 PM · #23

Another possible thought is that I'm pretty sure the standard Canon ring flash does not fit on the 180mm macro. You need the ring flash above that one and it's also pricier. I wasn't aware of that before I tried to put the regular flash in the 180mm lens.

lifeafter2am