Disadvantages of a longer macro lens?

[hughps]

I know about all the advantages of longer focal length macros, but are there any disadvantages? Is it harder to hand hold them and get a sharp image? I ask because I'm trying to decide between the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 150mm f/2.8. The price and size differentials aren't really an issue for me, and IQ-wise they're supposedly pretty similar, so I'm really just wondering if there is any reason to go with the Canon over the Sigma.

[picturecrazy]

I personally had trouble using the 100mm macro. You need a high shutter speed to handhold it, and with 100mm focal length, I was usually a decent distance away from the subject. I usually shoot around F/11-F/22 in macros and that makes it difficult to get a high shutter.

What camera do you have?

I went with the 60mm macro and it's perfect. I can handhold at 1/50, and because I'm closer, i can usually use the ground to brace my stance, which allows me to get to 1/25 handheld.

But it all depends on your style, and what you're shooting. I don't shoot live subjects so I can get really close and it doesn't matter. I also don't use flash when I macro which makes shutter speeds more of a concern to me.

[gasrocks]

Longer usually = more expensive and a bit heavier. However, few do macro handheld. I usually use a monopod. Also a difference in perspective, DOF and working distance. All pluses as far as I am concerned.

[Canon Bob]

I've got 50mm, 100mm and 180mm macro lenses and yes, the longer the focal length, the harder they are to hand hold. Another disadvantage with the longer ones is that you'll need more extension tubes to get the same increase in magnification if you want to go higher than 1:1

If I had to keep one lens for a crop camera then it would be in the 100/105 size for maximum flexibility....although I'd really miss the isolation and bokeh of the 180 and the compact size and ease of use of the 50/60mm range.

Bob

[amfoto1]

Another disadvantage is shallower depth of field, which to overcome means smaller apertures, which in turn means even lower shutter speeds.

I have Canon 100/2.8 and 180/3.5. On my 1.6X crop D-SLRs (30Ds and a 10D), the 100mm gets far, far more use. On full frame/film, they got about equal use.

50, 60, 70mm might work out okay on a 1.6X crop camera, but you have to be a little careful you don't cast a shadow on your subject, and to avoid scaring off critters, or getting bitten or stung by them.

[Canon Bob]

Another disadvantage is shallower depth of field, which to overcome means smaller apertures, which in turn means even lower shutter speeds.
.......

The depth of field at 1:1 will be the same for both lenses at the same aperture. DOF is magnification and aperture dependent and focal length is not part of the equation.

The idea that focal length equates to has just been discussed in this thread too http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=468955

Bob

[Roy C]

I use my 100 macro with a 1.4 tc at times - gives a bit more working distance without much extra weight (Kenko Pro). This lens takes a tc very well in terms of IQ.

[Larry Weinman]

I have both the Canon 100mm f 2.8 and the Canon 180mm f 3.5. The 180 has a definite advantage for bug chasing but it is definitely harder to hold. When not on a tripod I use it exclusively with the MT24 EX twin flash. A single flash with diffuser would also work well.

[RPCrowe]

The longer the lens, the heavier and bulkier it becomes. This can pose a problem in hand holding the longer lens. Another issue might or might not be the additional cost of a longer focal length lens.

IMO, for a 1.6x camera, the 90-100mm range is my favorite. It allows a decent lens to subject distance without a great increase in weight. My favorite macro is the 90mm f/2.8 Tamron which is an extremely lightweight lens. The 90mm Tamron weighs 14.3 oz. while the 60mm Canon weighs 11.8 oz. The 2.5 oz. difference is IMO not heavy enough to notice while shooting. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 f/2.8 macro is a bit heavier at 21.7 oz. That makes the 100mm over a half pound heavier (9.3 oz.) than the 60mm which might make a difference with some photographers.

When you get in the area of 180mm the weight increases drastically. At 38.4 oz.; the Canon 180mm macro lens is over a pound and a half heavier (26.44 oz.) than the 60mm Canon macro. Two and a half times the weight is a difference that can be readily noticed.

There is a marked difference in price between the 90-100mm Macro lenses ($449) and the 60mm ($369) with the 60mm being less expensive. However, I don't believe that the $80 difference should convince anyone to go either way. On the other hand, the 180mm Canon costs $1,239 at B&H while the 90-100mm macros are $449. IMO $790 is a big enough difference to sway me toward the 90-100mm focal lengths.

If you are seeking a 180mm Macro and want a better price; look into the Tamron which is about 1/2 the price of the Canon lens of the same focal length. I have not used the Tamron 180mm but, I love my 90mm Tamron and the 180mm from that company gets very good reviews. It is also over six ounces lighter than the Canon.

IS would make a difference in a heavy macro lens but, I know of no lens that is so equipped. However, my 300mm f/4L IS lens with either a 1.4x TC or an extension tube makes a pretty nice close focus (but, not macro) outfit, despite its relatively heavy weight.

[versedmb]

...I went with the 60mm macro and it's perfect. I can handhold at 1/50, and because I'm closer, i can usually use the ground to brace my stance, which allows me to get to 1/25 handheld.

But it all depends on your style, and what you're shooting. I don't shoot live subjects so I can get really close and it doesn't matter. I also don't use flash when I macro which makes shutter speeds more of a concern to me.

Ditto on this.

The 60mm macro is perfect IMO unless you need greater working distance to shoot bugs. Its light, super sharp, with amazing colors and contrast and its a great portrait lens. Its sharper, has better contrast and is better built than my 50mm 1.4........





http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/220178361_grx36-M.jpg

[Lester Wareham]

I know about all the advantages of longer focal length macros, but are there any disadvantages? Is it harder to hand hold them and get a sharp image? I ask because I'm trying to decide between the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 150mm f/2.8. The price and size differentials aren't really an issue for me, and IQ-wise they're supposedly pretty similar, so I'm really just wondering if there is any reason to go with the Canon over the Sigma.

Oh yes it will get harder to handhold as it gets longer, not just because of camera shake but because of the extra weight. You can also get into the situation of not being able to get back far enough in some circumstances.

The 100mm is a good length and I would not suggest going shorter unless you plan to do mostly copy work. Longer often seems a good idea with insects but most can be stalked OK with a 100mm.

The 150 is about halfway between the 100mm and 180/200mm macro lengths but it is quite a bit heavier than the 100mm.

Take a look at these notes which might help http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm

[markol]

Personally, I like the 180mm macro. I don't do those kinds of shots all that often, but when I do, that's the one I reach for. Downside is that it's considerably heavier than all the other macro lenses.

[Mrvile]

I owned both the Sigma 150 and Canon 100...

Basically I started with the Sigma (great lens), did a ton of insect macro, and ended up deciding that the lens was getting a bit difficult to handhold. However, I never use a tripod for insect work (getting a tripod set up while hoping your subject doesn't run away is a pain) so I always used flash. The Canon honestly isn't all that much different, in both focal length and weight, but at this point it doesn't matter too much to me anymore. I wanted to try the EF-S 60 but I figured it would be a little too short for bug work, so I'm happy with the 100 for smaller/closer subjects and the 70-300IS for longer stuff. The IS in the 70-300 basically negates all the "disadvantages" of the lens and makes for one of the best large insect lenses I've used (and I've used many lenses). It allows me to shoot without flash or a tripod, and some of my best shots have been taken with the 70-300.

Sigma 150:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a214/Mrvile/DSLR%20Photos/bugs/brown.jpg

Canon 100:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a214/Mrvile/DSLR%20Photos/bugs/soldierbeetle4.jpg

Canon 70-300:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a214/Mrvile/DSLR%20Photos/bugs/skipper1.jpg