Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Which macro lens?
Feb 9, 2012 19:36:35   #
papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach
 
Anyone have any thoughts on the benifits of either the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM or the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM? I am new to macro and it seems that the extra working distance of the 180 would be a benefit.

I have a Canon EOS 50D. Most of my experience is with sports and wildlife along with family pictures. I shoot a lot of birds and other wildlife with the 100-400L zoom and professional hockey with the 70-200 2.8L zoom. My favorite is the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

Now I want to get into closeups of flowers and bugs. Anyone have any thoughts of pros and cons of each lens? The cost difference is not an issue.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2012 20:51:02   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
To achieve 1:1 macro with:
100-mm lens = 160-mm (6.3-inches) Working distance;
180-mm lens = 288-mm (11.3-inches) Working distance.

Weight is a consideration, as well as possible lens shadow from camera-mounted speedlight or ring-flash on longer lens.

It is my understanding that both are excellent macro lenses.

| Reply
Feb 9, 2012 23:29:00   #
dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma
 
Nikonian72 wrote:
To achieve 1:1 macro with:
100-mm lens = 160-mm (6.3-inches) Working distance;
180-mm lens = 288-mm (11.3-inches) Working distance.

Weight is a consideration, as well as possible lens shadow from camera-mounted speedlight or ring-flash on longer lens.

It is my understanding that both are excellent macro lenses.


at times shorter is better????

| Reply
Feb 10, 2012 00:23:22   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
dirtpusher wrote:
at times shorter is better????

Not in my personal experience with a 40-yo manual Nikkor 55-mm macro and an A-F, VR Nikkor 105-mm macro. I prefer the 105.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2012 00:24:33   #
dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma
 
Nikonian72 wrote:
dirtpusher wrote:
at times shorter is better????

Not in my personal experience with a 40-yo manual Nikkor 55-mm macro and an A-F, VR Nikkor 105-mm macro. I prefer the 105.


ok thanks

| Reply
Feb 10, 2012 11:27:33   #
ShooterOR
 
papakatz45 wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on the benifits of either the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM or the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM? I am new to macro and it seems that the extra working distance of the 180 would be a benefit.

I have a Canon EOS 50D. Most of my experience is with sports and wildlife along with family pictures. I shoot a lot of birds and other wildlife with the 100-400L zoom and professional hockey with the 70-200 2.8L zoom. My favorite is the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

Now I want to get into closeups of flowers and bugs. Anyone have any thoughts of pros and cons of each lens? The cost difference is not an issue.
Anyone have any thoughts on the benifits of either... (show quote)


IMO, with flowers and bugs, the working distance between the two (See Nikonian's comment), isn't significant. Flying insects might be different. I love my 105mm (Nikkor).

| Reply
Feb 10, 2012 15:32:55   #
tinusbum Loc: east texas
 
you will scare a lot more bugs with a shorter lens.tom

| Reply
Feb 10, 2012 16:41:30   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
tinusbum wrote:
you will scare a lot more bugs with a shorter lens.

Shorter than what? With a Nikkor 105-mm macro lens, my normal WD is between 6-inches to 12-inches. I rarely spook insects.

For several reasons, I have experienced problems with living insects while using macro lenses in the 40-mm to 65-mm range.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2012 23:56:28   #
RocketScientist Loc: Littleton, Colorado
 
papakatz45 wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on the benifits of either the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM or the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM? I am new to macro and it seems that the extra working distance of the 180 would be a benefit.

I have a Canon EOS 50D. Most of my experience is with sports and wildlife along with family pictures. I shoot a lot of birds and other wildlife with the 100-400L zoom and professional hockey with the 70-200 2.8L zoom. My favorite is the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

Now I want to get into closeups of flowers and bugs. Anyone have any thoughts of pros and cons of each lens? The cost difference is not an issue.
Anyone have any thoughts on the benifits of either... (show quote)

The 100 is the one I am saving for.

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2020 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.