wildlife photographers- what do you use your Canon macro for?

[corbie3]

Hi folks,
I'm trying to decide whether to get the 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, or whether to go the whole hog and get the 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM. For those of you that take macro photos of wildlife, out in the field- what pics do you take with each of these lenses? Do you find that the weight of the lens is a big factor- or the minimum focus distance- or do you find the 180mm an all-round superior lens? Is the big difference in cost really worth it?
Looking for some more opinions!

[Bill Pham]

never use the 180 myself. wish i can afford it though. i use my 100 mostly for insects and some portraites. not that often cause it's too sharp and i get complaint about showing too much facial flaw :lol::lol::lol:. not much help i know.

Bill

[NeoTokyo]

If I were going after Macro at this moment I would go for the 180mm
On the used market the 180mm is 3 times as expensive as the 400'ish dollar 100mm.
Remember if you buy it used you can always resell it and get most of your money back, thats why we take such great care of our toys :D well maybe :P

Here are two POTN archives to help you along.

100mm f2.8
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=158427

180mm f3.5
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=290542

[gasrocks]

My advice - get the Sigma 150 macro.

[corbie3]

Thanks all, and the links to previous posts. From reading these it seems that there is a noticeable, but slight, difference in clarity and colour between the two, with one or two comments about the 180mm being difficult to hand-hold, and to get close enough to the subject in some cases. I've made up my mind to see if I can find a 2nd hand 180mm and try it out.

[twoshadows]

Paul,

Have you considered the Sigma 180mm Macro? It has faster AF with the same awesome picture quality. AND it's only $900 :D . Here's a link to the recently started archives:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=557082

[sadx]

Well if your really emphasizing on 100mm and 180mm macro lens i suggest you go for 180mm. The reasons is 180mm give you more reach to the insect in a limited space. besides that i am sure that you wont do f2.8 for insect sure you will set at f8 or higher for better detail of the insect.

Unless you do not have sufficient budget or intend to have 100mm as portrait lens then you go for 100mm f2.8. If for true macro shot i strongly suggest with the 180mm L.

[The_Camera_Poser]

I find the Canon/2.8 to be an awesome lens for macro, but not so good for other uses. It's AF is too slow for a lot of uses. But I do a lot of work handheld, and I'd be hopeless at handholding a 150mm or 180mm lens for macro work.

[Super-Nicko]

was using 100 today for a quick few shots of my orange tree which is infested with aphids and white fly (or something like that) and didnt have the inclination to set up the tripod.... man its a challenge getting a shot that close handheld aiming up into the tree...

i could see the 180 being an advantage by being able to be futher away.... the close focusing distance of 0.31 is from the sensor plane not the front of the lens dont forget so it brings you within about 10cm from target (which is hard enough to find in a hurry anyways) but id imagine the weight to be a factor - that and in my case today i was trying to angle my shot within the canopy so if i was any longer id have to push out branches.... (not fun considering i know the abundance of freaky looking bugs in that tree which ive only learnt about since getting macro.. - all dead now with the spraying today of some white oil)

goodluck... i think for 400 the 100macro is super value for a not everyday macro shooter... and its super on my 1 year old fir portraits.

goodluck

[corbie3]

Hmmm... some great pics there with the Sigma twoshadows!
I see Sigma also do a 150mm f/2.8 as well as the 180mm f/3.5. Choices, choices....
Super-Nicko, I see you also have the two L lenses I have- the 24-105 and the 100-400. Have you ever tried using those for Macro?

[Larry Weinman]

I have both lenses and I would say that the 180 is a better all around macro lens as it should be costing three times as much. I will say though that in spite of the extra distance from your macro subject I found the 180 extremely difficult to handhold with any steadiness in the field and wound up using it with the MT24 EX twin flash all the time to in field in order to prevent blurry photos. I never had allot of luuck chasing bugs with a tripod. The 100 is no slouch though and although both lenses can be used for non macro work I found the 100 to be overly sharp for portraiture. It shows every little flaw in the skin

[corbie3]

Thanks all, very useful information.
I have tried to do a bit of macro with my existing lens, the 24-105mm f/4 L, and posted a few of the first pics on the sharing photos / macro section. Please take a look and give me your comments.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6270316#post6270316

[MaDProFF]

I have both, and now never use the 100mm, the reason I bought the 180mm, is because there were times when I was too close, the subject was losing light as I was too close
I love the 180mm as a walk about as well.

Minus though it is quite a big lens, and not the lightest, thus when doing a macro shot, you have to be very steady when not using a tripod.

Why an earth Canon has not made upgraded this lens with IS is beyond belief

Many do say how good some 3rd party lenses are, but I have never used any.

[vkalia]

Noticable differences in clarity between 180mm and 100mm? Hmm - maybe if you pixel-peep, but otherwise, not really.

IQ differences are really irrelevant compared to the size/weight/working distance differences. These are the factors which should determine your purchase decision.

I have the Tamron 180mm, which is lighter than the Canon, but still heavy enough. In terms of compromises, its AF is the usual Tamron POS (slow, prone to hunting, noisy), but for macro, I am not too bothered. The lighter weight and lighter price more than compensate.

I use this setup handheld with a flash, and the greater working distance is really nice to have for bugs. I usually shoot handheld with a ring flash, and this set up works well enough for me to put up with the weight.

However, if you are shooting static subjects, the 100mm is a lot easier to work with.

Vandit

[vkalia]

Noticable differences in clarity between 180mm and 100mm? Hmm - maybe if you pixel-peep, but otherwise, not really.

IQ differences are really irrelevant compared to the size/weight/working distance differences. These are the factors which should determine your purchase decision.

I have the Tamron 180mm, which is lighter than the Canon, but still heavy enough. In terms of compromises, its AF is the usual Tamron POS (slow, prone to hunting, noisy), but for macro, I am not too bothered. The lighter weight and lighter price more than compensate.

I use this setup handheld with a flash, and the greater working distance is really nice to have for bugs. I usually shoot handheld with a ring flash, and this set up works well enough for me to put up with the weight.

However, if you are shooting static subjects, the 100mm is a lot easier to work with.

Vandit

[ctranter]

Macro stuff? :p