| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/23/2011 02:08:11 PM · #1 |
| I had the original 100mm macro at one time, very sharp lens. Thinking real hard on getting another one. I kind of like the extra reach on the 180mm. I'd like to get your guys/gals opinions. Is the IS that much of an improvement on the 100mm? Is the extra reach really needed?.....Thanks in advance......ace |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 02:12:06 PM · #2 |
Send a pm to  DrAchoo; I think he's used both, and owns the 180mm... One thing to consider, though; the newest iteration, the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS USM, has the latest generation of IS designed specifically for this sort of work, and it's really slick...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2011 02:14:25 PM · #3 |
I have the latest 100mm macro which is an L lens as opposed to the original 100mm and the IS has helped me take a lot of handheld macro shots with pleasing results. This one I shot handheld outdoors under windy conditions.
Message edited by author 2011-11-23 14:39:59. |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 02:32:24 PM · #4 |
do you think you'll need to shoot handheld at slower than 1/100 ? if not you may not even need IS.
Message edited by author 2011-11-23 14:32:41. |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 02:55:09 PM · #5 |
f/2.8 against f/3.5? If you are going to lust after L glass, why not go as fast as you can? The 100 is my next object of desire. If you want more reach look at the 200. It isn't macro but it can get decent closeups. Both are cheaper and faster than the 180.
  <--from the non-macro 200mm f/2.8 |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 03:16:54 PM · #6 |
The 180mm is certainly more expensive; almost 50% more (yikes!). It will allow a little longer working distance (not radically more). The f/3.5 vs. f/2.8 is a complete non-issue, IMO. The real question is, do you chase skittish live things, and is the extra working distance going to give you an advantage there? A secondary question is whether the 180mm or 100mm focal length is a better match for your non-macro needs?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2011 03:35:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The f/3.5 vs. f/2.8 is a complete non-issue, IMO. |
Fritz, I don't mean to challenge you, I have great respect for the depth of your technical knowledge, but why is it a non-issue? Is my quest for fast glass another marketing ploy I have bought into? |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 04:10:21 PM · #8 |
| And then ther's the Sigma 150mm f2,8 stabilized macro. A fine lens, if "Photozone.de" is anything to go by. |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 04:11:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The f/3.5 vs. f/2.8 is a complete non-issue, IMO. |
Fritz, I don't mean to challenge you, I have great respect for the depth of your technical knowledge, but why is it a non-issue? Is my quest for fast glass another marketing ploy I have bought into? |
I suspect he's thinking in terms of f/2.8 being a marginally useful aperture for macro work...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2011 04:26:17 PM · #10 |
I have not used the new 100mm with the 2 dimension IS. It's possible that might be a good feature. However, between the 180mm and the 100mm I have to say the working distance feels huge when you are shooting bugs with the 180mm. I would give serious consideration to the 180mm if you think this may be an issue. Of note, the common ring flash does not fit on the 180mm. You have to get the NICE ring flash (ie. more expensive). If you think you would want to go in that direction the 100mm may be the better choice.
Just some thoughts. I do love my 180mm.
Message edited by author 2011-11-23 16:26:43. |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 04:34:34 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The f/3.5 vs. f/2.8 is a complete non-issue, IMO. |
Fritz, I don't mean to challenge you, I have great respect for the depth of your technical knowledge, but why is it a non-issue? Is my quest for fast glass another marketing ploy I have bought into? |
For macro purposes, the only thing the faster lens will get you is a brighter finder image and in this case, the difference is minimal. |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 04:38:37 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I suspect he's thinking in terms of f/2.8 being a marginally useful aperture for macro work...
R. |
Yep, that and we're talking a about 2/3 of a stop, which is pretty inconsequential both from a light-gathering perspective and a DoF perspective.
ETA: ursula might debate whether f/2.8 is or isn't useful for macro ;-)
Message edited by author 2011-11-23 16:40:29.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2011 05:08:52 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
ursula might debate whether f/2.8 is or isn't useful for macro ;-) |
Well, so would I :-) I use f/2.8 for macro all the time, I love the razor-thin DOF. I do find the 2-plane IS to be wildly useful, also.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2011 05:24:33 PM · #14 |
| I'll side with Fritz to say the DOF difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is probably irrelevant. They are both very thin and most of the time you are going to wish it was thicker... |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 05:29:29 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll side with Fritz to say the DOF difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is probably irrelevant. They are both very thin and most of the time you are going to wish it was thicker... |
Yeah, but that wasn't the point. Or it IS the point, rather: most macro work isn't done anywhere near wide-open, so for most people 2.8 or 3.5 doesn't matter squadoosh when shooting macro. I assumed this was what Fritz was getting at. So who's disagreed? I'm confused. As usual.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2011 06:07:06 PM · #16 |
| My puzzlement kicked it off, but since I do no macro work that puzzlement is a constant state. |
|
|
|
11/24/2011 03:26:50 PM · #17 |
| try an extension tube on your 70-200 you might find this interesting and save some money! |
|
|
|
11/24/2011 04:23:36 PM · #18 |
The 100L is a very nice lens. I loved the IS in this lens. It can be helpful handholding. But I found the biggest advantage is a steady image, in the viewfinder. Compared to the non L 100, sharpness is not much different. Colours seem
better on the 100L. Although, it has way more cromatic aberation. Between the two, I would get the non L, knowing what I have learned. Yeah, I sold both to fund my 500 f4. So I too will be in the market soon. I will be getting the 180mm. Reasons being, larger working distance and that beautiful smooth boken.Plus it comes standard, with a tripod ring mount. Price out a 100mm tripod ring mount and the price difference is a lot closer to each other. Take a look on digital picture.com. They have some great info, compairing all those macro lenses. Plus some great sample images too...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 10:28:26 AM EDT.
