Question about 2 lenses (200mm Vs. 180 macro)

[bubba zanetti]

G'day all.

I was wondering what is the big difference with the Canon 200 f/2.8 II USM & the 180mm f/3.5 macro.

Clearly the small ap size diff & 20mm... but could the 200mm f/2.8 be used as a macro also or would it need ext tube ?

Wondering if one lens could do both jobs ok.

Ta
Gus

[Jesper]

I have neither of those lenses myself, but if you look at Canon's website:

The 200mm f/2.8 is not a macro lens, so it will not magnify to 1:1 (which a real macro lens can). The closest focussing distance of the 200mm f/2.8 is 1.5m (4.9ft) according to Canon's EF Lenses website (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/index.html). So to do macro with the 200mm, you do need extension tubes, but according to Canon's specs the magnification with the Canon EF 25 extension tube is only 0.32x (and not 1x, like a real macro lens).

So if you're really looking for a macro lens, the 180mm is obviously a better choice.

[bubba zanetti]

Tks jesper...even with the ext tube...its still well off a macro. True macro it will have to be.

[mbze430]

I own the 180mm f/3.5L, using it as a telephoto lens is VERY sharp. If you set the focus to only focus 1.5m to infinity it is very useable.

After owning this lens, I am having second thoughts about purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8L! All I really need to cover those range is get a 85mm f/1.2L and a 135mm f/2L.

In anycase, I find the 180mm serves the double useage. I also have a EF12 II extension tube, and it bring it a little bit closer. It also support the 1.4x and 2x (no auto-focus).