Canon 180mm Macro vs. 100mm Macro

01/29/2009 04:34:28 PM · #26

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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.

It will fit, but you have to buy an adapter to put on it.

Does it cause a vignette? Because the ringflash aperture is smaller than the 180mm front element.

lifeafter2am

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/29/2009 04:38:04 PM · #27

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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.

It will fit, but you have to buy an adapter to put on it.

Does it cause a vignette? Because the ringflash aperture is smaller than the 180mm front element.

It might, all I remember is that there was an adapter that you had to buy. It's the Canon 72c Macrolite Adapter.

01/29/2009 04:40:44 PM · #28

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

Originally posted by Mick:
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. :)

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.

On the contrary, just because Canon makes a 5:1 macro lens doesn't mean the 180mm + TC combination isn't viable. Few people can afford to buy an expensive lens that's only useful for high-magnification macro work. On the other hand, the 180mm lens is much more versatile. It's a great lens for both macro and normal telephoto work. And lots of people have TCs in their bag.

lifeafter2am

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/29/2009 04:44:22 PM · #29

Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

Originally posted by Mick:
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. :)

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.

On the contrary, just because Canon makes a 5:1 macro lens doesn't mean the 180mm + TC combination isn't viable. Few people can afford to buy an expensive lens that's only useful for high-magnification macro work. On the other hand, the 180mm lens is much more versatile. It's a great lens for both macro and normal telephoto work. And lots of people have TCs in their bag.

Normal telephoto work? Yeah, with arguably one of the slowest AF's that Canon makes. lol. I realize that in Macro you manual focus most of the time anyway (at least I do), but not when I am doing "normal" telephoto work.

I understand if you already have a TC, I ment if you were going to buy it just to increase the mag-ratio.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/29/2009 05:00:01 PM · #30

I agree the AF makes it pretty useless for any action telephoto, but I use it for landscape work:

01/30/2009 08:37:20 AM · #31

Originally posted by kirbic:

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 how the background blur is rendered.

You and Robert are undoubtedly correct. My bottom line is that if I were to take a picture of the same flora and that I cropped and enlarged it to the same physical size in the final print the net effect would be that the shorter focal lengthed lens would appear to have the greater DOF, and in the final analysis that is all that matters.

My problem, always, with macro has been that the DOF is to narrow and I get things out-of-focus in my main subject that I want in focus. I'm interested in whatever mitigates that problem.

But then again, I've never had a decent macro lens before. :)

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

01/30/2009 08:44:05 AM · #32

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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.

It will fit, but you have to buy an adapter to put on it.

Does it cause a vignette? Because the ringflash aperture is smaller than the 180mm front element.

It might, all I remember is that there was an adapter that you had to buy. It's the Canon 72c Macrolite Adapter.

It doesn't cause a vignette. Honest.

01/30/2009 09:18:37 AM · #33

Thanks to all of you. As always, you have been incredibly helpful.

It is a tough decision but I think I will go with the 100mm macro for a variety of reasons...

I really like the greater distance to subject offered by the 180mm and its solid "L" construction but that is one BIG, heavy sucker! On the plus side it would be handy to inflict blunt force trauma on someone giving me trouble out on a shoot but it is not a very nimble lens to work with.

My brand of photography is generally non-studio field work where carefully planning a shot and setting up to adjust a tripod isn't always practical.

I have been in numerous situations where rattlesnakes and various other creepy crawlers and airborne insects have chased me with the expressed intent of inflicting bodily harm. I need to be able to take the shot and get out quick. And other subjects are shy or fearful and refuse to pose so must be stalked. Those are the type of shots that produce the most exciting results. But I have to be able to adjust quickly to unpredictable situations to get those pictures. During those times the tripod is usually left sitting somewhere, which is how I usually manage to lose them. LOL!!

Though I worry about overall quality of the housing and lens sealants, the image quality of the 100mm is said to be nearly as good as the 180mm. And though I have to get closer to my subject it is light, easy to take hiking and is a proven solid performer. I think the 100mm would be faster and easier for me to respond to hand-help situations to get the shot.

And it doesn't hurt that is is less than half the price.

01/30/2009 02:00:17 PM · #34

Originally posted by Artifacts:

And it doesn't hurt that is is less than half the price.

Actually, if you buy the same accessories for the 100mm lens that come with the 180mm lens (tripod mount ring + lens hood), then your total will be almost $30 more than half the price of the 180mm lens.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM lens $490.00
Canon ET-67 lens hood $39.95
Canon Tripod Mount Ring B $149.95
------------------------------------------
Total $679.90

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM lens $1300.00
Half the price $650.00

But who's counting... besides my wife. :)

01/30/2009 02:27:28 PM · #35

Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by Artifacts:
And it doesn't hurt that is is less than half the price.

Actually, if you buy the same accessories for the 100mm lens that come with the 180mm lens (tripod mount ring + lens hood), then your total will be almost $30 more than half the price of the 180mm lens.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM lens $490.00
Canon ET-67 lens hood $39.95
Canon Tripod Mount Ring B $149.95
------------------------------------------
Total $679.90

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM lens $1300.00
Half the price $650.00

But who's counting... besides my wife. :)

Hey... both your wife and I are counting!!! LOL!

Mick... I get my equipment list together and we GOTTA go out shooting together! Maybe The Gorge or Haystack... anything to get some actuations on my new camera before I go out on some photo safaris I got planned!

01/30/2009 02:56:14 PM · #36

Originally posted by Artifacts:

Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by Artifacts:
And it doesn't hurt that is is less than half the price.

Actually, if you buy the same accessories for the 100mm lens that come with the 180mm lens (tripod mount ring + lens hood), then your total will be almost $30 more than half the price of the 180mm lens.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM lens $490.00
Canon ET-67 lens hood $39.95
Canon Tripod Mount Ring B $149.95
------------------------------------------
Total $679.90

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM lens $1300.00
Half the price $650.00

But who's counting... besides my wife. :)

Hey... both your wife and I are counting!!! LOL!

Mick... I get my equipment list together and we GOTTA go out shooting together! Maybe The Gorge or Haystack... anything to get some actuations on my new camera before I go out on some photo safaris I got planned!

Absolutely! Weather and other circumstances have had me living like a hermit for too long! :D

PM me and we'll set something up.

01/30/2009 03:23:56 PM · #37

Originally posted by Artifacts:

Originally posted by kirbic:

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 how the background blur is rendered.

You and Robert are undoubtedly correct. My bottom line is that if I were to take a picture of the same flora and that I cropped and enlarged it to the same physical size in the final print the net effect would be that the shorter focal lengthed lens would appear to have the greater DOF, and in the final analysis that is all that matters.

This is not true. Here's an experiment for ya: shooting from a tripod, shoot the same scene, focused at the same point in the scene, with a WA and a short telephoto lens, say 28mm and 100mm. Set the apertures to the same physical size. F/2.8 on the 28 is about the same as F/8 on the 100mm, anything in the ballpark will work. Now print the 100mm shot full frame and crop the 28mm shot to match it. Toggle back and forth between the two, they'll be identical. Issues of "grain" aside, of course. That's why I'm suggesting this at 28 and 100, to minimize added grain/noise from extreme crop.

DOF is a function of the physical diameter of the aperture, it is independent of the focal length of the lens. The confusion arises because f/16 on a 20mm lens is a LOT smaller of an aperture than f/16 on a 100mm lens, see? So for a given f/stop the shorter the lens the greater the DOF, but it doesn't have anything to do with the focal length of the lens; it's about the physical diameter of the aperture.

Same thing with "circle of confusion", which robs a lens of sharpness, btw: you can easily stop a 400mm telephoto way down without much affecting image quality because the aperture is still relatively large, but if you stop a 10mm lens down past f/8 or so you start losing sharpness rapidly because of refraction of the light rays from the edges of the tiny aperture.

R.

01/30/2009 03:26:54 PM · #38

Originally posted by Artifacts:

Though I worry about overall quality of the housing and lens sealants, the image quality of the 100mm is said to be nearly as good as the 180mm. And though I have to get closer to my subject it is light, easy to take hiking and is a proven solid performer. I think the 100mm would be faster and easier for me to respond to hand-help situations to get the shot.

And it doesn't hurt that is is less than half the price.

If you'd even contemplate buying the $1300 lens, why quibble at ponying up another $150 for the tripod mount ring on the 100mm? You'll be REALLY Happy you got it, trust me.

R.

01/31/2009 12:21:10 AM · #39

Wellll... its official... the decision is made... there is no going back now...

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is bought, paid for and in the mail.

No accessories with my purchase. I have a couple other lenses to buy and will purchase tripods, filters, mounting rings and other accessories all together in one fell swoop. (Other two lenses are the EF 17-40mm f/4L IS USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM)

To Bear_Music:
Of course, I agree that if you shoot with a higher f/stop on the longer focal length lens that you can obtain the same DOF as a shorter focal length lens at a lower f/stop. That makes perfect sense.

My point is that shooting the same scene at the 1:1 magnification distance-to-subject for both the 100 and the 180 and shooting it at the same f/stop on both lenses will result in the 100 having the wider DOF. That means, theoretically, under those conditions it should be easier to get my whole main subject in focus with the 100mm lens than with the 180mm.

I think that is right. At least I hope so... otherwise my circles of confusion just got bigger! LOL!!!

lifeafter2am

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/31/2009 12:24:21 AM · #40

Originally posted by Artifacts:

Nice kit you are working on ... I hate to burst your bubble though, but there is no IS on the 17-40 f/4L. :-)

vawendy

Sony Alpha a1 II

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

01/31/2009 12:33:12 AM · #41

I love my 100 2.8!! good choice! I want the double flash system to go with it (I thought I wanted the ring flash, but someone told me they liked the double better). I'm also holding off on the 70-200 f4, and saving up for the faster one instead. (Not that I could afford either for quite awhile! but I figure my first L series lens, I might as well go all the way!)

01/31/2009 02:12:05 AM · #42

Originally posted by Artifacts:

My point is that shooting the same scene at the 1:1 magnification distance-to-subject for both the 100 and the 180 and shooting it at the same f/stop on both lenses will result in the 100 having the wider DOF. That means, theoretically, under those conditions it should be easier to get my whole main subject in focus with the 100mm lens than with the 180mm.

I think that is right. At least I hope so... otherwise my circles of confusion just got bigger! LOL!!!

I'm sorry, but it just isn't true. at 1:1 magnification and f/4.0, the DOF on the 100mm is about .048 feet. On the 180mm it's about .045 feet. As best I can calculate, it's difficult to get exact results at such close focusing differences from the online DOF calculators. But I can assure you, from practical experience that there's essentially NO difference in DOF at a given f/stop and magnification between 60mm and 100mm because I tested it. There's no reason for it to be any different between 100mm and 180mm.

Remember, the 100mm does 1:1 at 1.0', sensor plane-to-subject; the 180mm does 1:1 at 1.6' sensor plane-to-subject. If you think about it, you'll realize that at a given f/stop on a given lens, the further away the point of focus is, the more DOF you have, right? So whatever the 100mm is gaining from having a physically smaller aperture at a given f/stop, it's giving right back by having to focus in closer.

The whole equation, not surprisingly, comes out in nearly perfect balance: for any given magnification ratio DOF is independent of the focal length of the lens.

There ARE other variables that come into play, such as the optical construction of the given lens, the circularity of the aperture, gawd only knows what-all else, but the key variable for DOF remains the size of the aperture.

R.

01/31/2009 03:01:40 AM · #43

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Artifacts:

My point is that shooting the same scene at the 1:1 magnification distance-to-subject for both the 100 and the 180 and shooting it at the same f/stop on both lenses will result in the 100 having the wider DOF. That means, theoretically, under those conditions it should be easier to get my whole main subject in focus with the 100mm lens than with the 180mm.

I think that is right. At least I hope so... otherwise my circles of confusion just got bigger! LOL!!!

I'm sorry, but it just isn't true. at 1:1 magnification and f/4.0, the DOF on the 100mm is about .048 feet. On the 180mm it's about .045 feet. As best I can calculate, it's difficult to get exact results at such close focusing differences from the online DOF calculators. But I can assure you, from practical experience that there's essentially NO difference in DOF at a given f/stop and magnification between 60mm and 100mm because I tested it. There's no reason for it to be any different between 100mm and 180mm.

Remember, the 100mm does 1:1 at 1.0', sensor plane-to-subject; the 180mm does 1:1 at 1.6' sensor plane-to-subject. If you think about it, you'll realize that at a given f/stop on a given lens, the further away the point of focus is, the more DOF you have, right? So whatever the 100mm is gaining from having a physically smaller aperture at a given f/stop, it's giving right back by having to focus in closer.

The whole equation, not surprisingly, comes out in nearly perfect balance: for any given magnification ratio DOF is independent of the focal length of the lens.

There ARE other variables that come into play, such as the optical construction of the given lens, the circularity of the aperture, gawd only knows what-all else, but the key variable for DOF remains the size of the aperture.

R.

Yes! That's because the size of the aperture controls the strength of the aperture vortex, which is itself directly related to the power of the circle of confusion. The strength of the aperture vortex controls the number of photons that will be sucked through the aperture and spun around in the circle of confusion. And of course everyone knows that highly confused photons almost always result in a shallow DOF because they cannot make it all the way to the focal plane. Many simply become too dizzy to continue and eventually wander off in random directions. This is known as CA (Chromatic Aberration). Even the photons that are strong enough to make it to the focal plane are often still somewhat confused and the result may be a distinct lack of sharpness. The photons that travel the furthest distance before reaching the aperture vortex are more susceptible to loosing their direction in the circle of confusion. That is why the further an object is from the POF (Point Of Focus) the blurrier that object will be in the resulting image.

01/31/2009 01:53:47 PM · #44

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

Originally posted by Artifacts:
Wellll... its official... the decision is made... there is no going back now...

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is bought, paid for and in the mail.

No accessories with my purchase. I have a couple other lenses to buy and will purchase tripods, filters, mounting rings and other accessories all together in one fell swoop. (Other two lenses are the EF 17-40mm f/4L IS USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM)

Nice kit you are working on ... I hate to burst your bubble though, but there is no IS on the 17-40 f/4L. :-)

Oh... yeah... I knew that... just got carried away with the acronyms. LOL!!! Btw, that lens is now purchased.

01/31/2009 02:01:12 PM · #45

Originally posted by vawendy:

I figured for less than 1 f/stop I could live with the $500 savings or whatever it is. :) I'm trying to find a mint condition used one for around $1K. I've seen some really nice looking ones I'd have bought sell for around $900 in the past on Ebay. That lens sells new locally for $1,180 here.

01/31/2009 02:04:44 PM · #46

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'll take your word for it, Robert. You haven't steered me wrong yet. But when I catch up with Achoo I'll be doing some of my own independent confirmation. :) LOL!!!

Message edited by author 2009-01-31 14:08:04.

01/31/2009 04:18:31 PM · #47

Originally posted by Mick:

[quote=Bear_Music]
Yes! That's because the size of the aperture controls the strength of the aperture vortex, which is itself directly related to the power of the circle of confusion. The strength of the aperture vortex controls the number of photons that will be sucked through the aperture and spun around in the circle of confusion. And of course everyone knows that highly confused photons almost always result in a shallow DOF because they cannot make it all the way to the focal plane. Many simply become too dizzy to continue and eventually wander off in random directions. This is known as CA (Chromatic Aberration). Even the photons that are strong enough to make it to the focal plane are often still somewhat confused and the result may be a distinct lack of sharpness. The photons that travel the furthest distance before reaching the aperture vortex are more susceptible to loosing their direction in the circle of confusion. That is why the further an object is from the POF (Point Of Focus) the blurrier that object will be in the resulting image.

Thanks so much, Mick!

"It's really helpful when someone like you can cut through my technical gobbledygook and express technical concepts in terms that everyone can understand and appreciate," he said, while spewing Coke Zero out of his nose in stunned appreciation...

R.

Message edited by author 2009-01-31 16:25:37.

01/31/2009 04:24:48 PM · #48

Originally posted by Artifacts:

I'll take your word for it, Robert. You haven't steered me wrong yet. But when I catch up with Achoo I'll be doing some of my own independent confirmation. :) LOL!!!

Well, if you were REALLY Taking my word for it, you'd have no need for corraboration, now would ya?

But I'll yield to your skeptical nature and encourage you to do just that. For what it's worth, I did all sorts of closeup photography in my pro days, primarily of architectural models, and it was a LONG time before I realized the truth of this matter. In fact, I never did until I bought my 60mm macro to go with the 20D, assuming (when I bought it) that it would give me a significant DOF boost over the 100mm.

Soon I realized this didn't seem to be the case, so I borrowed a 100mm lens from the store and did some testing. When my suspicions were confirmed, I did some *research* (what a novel concept!) and realized that this irrelevance of focal length to DOF at macro distances was not some strange aberration but an optical fact.

R.