180mm f3.5 L Macro...opinions please.

[V6GTO]

I'd be very grateful for the thoughts of anyone who has one. Thanks,

Martin.

[mbze430]

I just got one, and loving it. Super sharp. However, its pretty heavy. But with the tripod mount, you can set it up with a tripod. I am now looking for an Angle C finder to accomidate Macro shooting.

Here is a recent shot I took with the 180mm Macro f/3.5 L

http://mysite.verizon.net/turbo2/album/Nature/Animals%20&%20Insects/slides/ant%20on%20fly.html

[DCB]

First is normal. Second is macro, full frame. Third is crop of macro. My technique was pretty poor, but at least it'll show you a little of the lens capability.

http://www.retake.com/berry1.jpg

http://www.retake.com/berry2.jpg

http://www.retake.com/berry3.jpg

[Belmondo]

Wow. Those are some pretty compelling images. I'd say the lens is pretty amazing.

[J Rabin]

This is a phenomenal lens, but ONLY if you need it. It does not give sharper images than the 100mm Canon Macro. Also, it's f/3.5 vs. f/2.8 for the 100mm giving a little less light gathering to focus in low light (because few would shoot these wide open due to shallow DOF anyway. It's just about a mandatory tripod mounted use lens. THE reason for Canon 180mm macro is IF you need INCREASED WORKING DISTANCE FROM THE SUBJECT. Only you can decide if you need the working distance, i.e., min focus distance from sensor plane to subject @ 31cm for the 100mm and 48 cm for the 180mm.
Secondary reasons to own it are marginally faster autofocus than the 100mm (but I manually focus most macro) and ability to use 1.4X extender. To tell the truth, for most users in the field, it's better to own the 100mm macro f/2.8 and then purchase the Canon 70-200L f/4 and use it with 500D diopter or 12mm or 24mm extension tube for close-up less than macro. Both these lenses offer lots of flexibility and together cost about the 180mm.
I use the the 100mm, a colleague uses the 180. I take mine more places, get more pictures than his 1+Kg lug. Hope that helps.
J