Which macro lens? Canon 100L or 185L? Anybody have thoughts as to which is the better lens for macro between the canon 100L and 185L if money is not an issue? I would like to get into...

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Anybody have thoughts as to which is the better lens for macro between the canon 100L and 185L if money is not an issue?

I would like to get into macro but cannot decide which lens would be the best. Hooking it to a Canon E-50.

Viceroy

papakatz45 wrote:

Anybody have thoughts as to which is the better lens for macro between the canon 100L and 185L if money is not an issue?

I would like to get into macro but cannot decide which lens would be the best. Hooking it to a Canon E-50.

I don't know canon, but the 100 will be easier to work with hand held than the larger lens that is heavier and more difficult to use without a tripod.

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

I own the 100mm IS version and it rocks. I don't do much macro but it shines as a macro-closeup and a good portrait lens as well.
I've hand held with good results but a tripod is much needed for good macro. when on a tripod use manual focus and turn the IS off. I took these yesterday, not that great but it might help.

ephraim Imperio

papakatz45 wrote:

Anybody have thoughts as to which is the better lens for macro between the canon 100L and 185L if money is not an issue?

I would like to get into macro but cannot decide which lens would be the best. Hooking it to a Canon E-50.

Many Canon macro photographers use this:

ephraim Imperio

ephraim Imperio wrote:

papakatz45 wrote:

Anybody have thoughts as to which is the better lens for macro between the canon 100L and 185L if money is not an issue?

I would like to get into macro but cannot decide which lens would be the best. Hooking it to a Canon E-50.

Many Canon macro photographers use this:

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

All of these are good answers but does anyone have any experience with the Canon 185L macrolens?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

We haven't any experience with the 185. My wife has the Canon 180 macro and is more than pleased with it and glad she didn't settle for the 100. We recommend using a tripod and remote shutter for best effect with any of the lenses.

Bear

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

I ment the 180, mistyped. Thanks for the reply. Is there any reason she bought the 180 over the 100? The only difference I can see is the working distance.

Any thoughts from anyone else?

Steve Byland Loc: New Jersey

I thought I wanted the 100mm Macro. What I did was go out with a soom lens that I set at 100mm and spend the day just shooting at 100mm. If I couldn't get as close as I would have with the macro lens, I took the shot out of focus to get an idea of what I would look like. Then I did the same thing with a lens set at 180. I figured out this was that I needed/wanted the additional reach that the 180 gave me. It is so highly dependent on the types of things you are planning to photograph. Macro lens is a very expensive investment - spend a little time to make sure you get the one that you are going to be happy with rather than leaving it in your closet.

Generally speaking, all macro lenses are built to the highest quality, so size becomes the important issue. Tripod and remote shutter release are a must.

Viceroy

papakatz45 wrote:

All of these are good answers but does anyone have any experience with the Canon 185L macrolens?

My experience is with Nikon. I have used the105 and 200. The 200 gives me more distance but is the only advantage, it is heavier and more difficult to shoot handheld. if insects and such are what you will be shooting the 100 will be much easier to work with.

My 105 quickly became my favorite lens. Hope this helps.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Insects and flowers are my interest. I would have thought the 180 working distance would be an advantage not having to get as close as the 100 for the same shot. Am I missing something?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

papakatz45 wrote:

I ment the 180, mistyped. Thanks for the reply. Is there any reason she bought the 180 over the 100? The only difference I can see is the working distance.

Any thoughts from anyone else?

In her words: "I can get better shots at more of a distance than others were getting as they struggled to get close enough and still keep good light on the subject."

Here is an example of what she was able to capture.

Viceroy

papakatz45 wrote:

Insects and flowers are my interest. I would have thought the 180 working distance would be an advantage not having to get as close as the 100 for the same shot. Am I missing something?

The problem being the additional weight of the lens makes it more difficult to handhold with out shake affecting your photo.

here are a few taken with the 105. I had a tougher time taking similar shots with the 200mm.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

GOODNESS!! The E-50 is a 35mm FILM camera! What the heck is THAT ??
.
Anyway - I use the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro on my crop sensor 7D - so I get a 150mm equivalent. The IS is helpful!
.
For your FF body, I might vote for the 185 so you don't have to get so close to the multi-legged critters who might get spooked if you got too close with your 100mm. But the 185 doesn't have IS - so you're probably gonna have to shoot Macro with the help of a tripod if you choose that lens. The 185 is also bigger - -

Viceroy

Merlin1300 wrote:

GOODNESS!! The E-50 is a 35mm FILM camera! What ... (show quote)

Exactly! That monarch shot was taken from about 4 feet away which is more than enough. I take many butterfly pics and use this lens exclusively. Shooting Macro on a tripod is very frustrating.