 Deborah A. Ciullo |
Macro lenses I own a Canon 5D and was just about to purchase a macro lens. I originally had ordered the Canon 180mm lens because of the fact that if you were shooting a butterfly or insect you could be a bit farther away. I was just speaking with someone and they reccomended that I purchase the Canon 100mm lens because it is easier to use and a more versatile lens. At this point I am totally confused. The camera store is now holding them both for me until Monday. Has anyone used both or either of these lenses? Can anyone offer some suggestions? I really would appreciate it. Thank you. Debbie
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
which one is faster,f-stop.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deborah A. Ciullo |
Sam, The 100mm lens is an f/2.8 USM but the 180mm is an L series lens. It is an f/3.5 lens. Debbie
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
boy debbie, a 100 usm macro f2.8,yes. I don't think you will ever regret that purchase. sam
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deborah A. Ciullo |
Thanks Sam, I appreciate your help. Debbie
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Debbie, no doubt either lens will give you the quality you want, but I think the differences you will want to consider are: 1) focal length - as you know, longer means more working distance. This is not only good for longer distance to your subject ( particularly good with icky ones) but also for lighting. If your lens is further away from the flower, you have more flexibility in how you light it without the lens itself throwing a shadow in an unwanted area. 2) speed - for macro, this is less of a big deal, as depth of field is so shallow for macro work that you will often be stopping down anyway. F3.5 is less than a stop slower than 2.8; but the faster lens might give you more ability to focus by letting more light get to your eye. 3) USM - pretty much worthless for macro work - you will probably find that you will want to focus manually anyway as often the auto-focus mechanism finds an area in which you are less interested. Of course, if you use the lens for other types of shooting, the faster speed and USM could well be worth it - but you need to be the judge of that. 4) weight - the longer lens is of course bigger and heavier - the question is will this matter to you? Will you always be puttering around the house, or will you be trekking 50 miles into the hinterlands? 5) cost - that's on you. Again, either way I'm sure you will be able to get great shots from the gear - these are just thoughts as to what you might want to consider.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
thanks bob.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deborah A. Ciullo |
Thank you to Bob. I really appreciate everyone's help on this! Debbie
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vickie Burt |
Hi Debbie, I would be very interested to hear which lens you eventually decided on. I am having the same dilema with a Sigma 105 f/2.8 and a 150 f/2.8. To complicate it further, I have heard lots of good reports for the 105, but nothing about the 150. Thanks, Vickie.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
This is an inquiry for which I have an absolutely passionate opinion. I own and use the same versions in Nikon - a 105 and 200 macro. My favorite for flowers and insects, including butterflies, is the 200mm, for the exact reasons you state. I cannot overstate my passion for this particular lens. It also possesses excellent compositional properties, including a shallower DOF, and narrower angle of view, compared to the 100/105 macros. The 100 could arguably be a more versatile lens. But, in your case, you have a specific need. And the longer focal length outshines here. Very few people own the 180/200 macro lenses due to their expense. So keep in mind that many of the responses you receive may be from good intenders, but not from ones who have had hands on experience in the field with both the 180 & 100. The longer the lens, the more its optical properties allow the main subject to stand out from the background, and the narrower angle of view keeps your background view very limited. These are good things in the venue of portraits - expecially flower and butterfly portraiture. If you can afford the 180, and you've got flowers and bugs on your list of subjects, get the 180. Michael H. Cothran
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deborah A. Ciullo |
Thanks SO much Michael! All of this has really helped me to make my decision. I just picked up the 180 lens. Thanks again everyone! Debbie
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Hey Deborah, I've got both Macro lenses (100 & 180) and can tell you with my 1Ds MarkII the 180MM is amazing. Its down side is that it's big and heavy but if you ever get mugged you'll win. The photos you'll produce with that lens will blow you away, super sharp. If you've got the cash you'll be pleased with the 180mm.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deborah A. Ciullo |
Thanks Oliver. I picked up the new lens the other day but I hurt my knee and haven't been able to get out much these last few days to experiment with it. My daughter just brought home some flowers so I am going to experiment now! Debbie
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||