Why did you sell your 180mm macro?

I shoot a fair amount of macro - mostly flowers - and currently have a 100 f2.8 (non-L). It is relatively lightweight and I can carry it all day as long has I don't have the 580EX mounted on the camera as well. IQ is excellent.

A friend is offering me his 180mm macro for a good price - about the same as 100L. The 180mm f3.5 lens is reputedly THE last word in Canon macro lenses in terms of IQ and working distance. It is the solution professionals use. I am not a professional, however I wouldn't mind extra working distance and creamier bokeh. The tradeoffs are weight, cost and aperature. The lens is probably too heavy to carry on a hike.

The 100L reputedly offers largely the same IQ as the 100 non-L but adds some flexibility for non-macro work by virtue of the IS (as well as weather-sealing which doesn't interest me). The lens is larger than the non-L but nowhere near as big or heavy as the 180mm. I reckon there are plenty of better lenses for low-light portrait work (50, 85, 135).

So, I'm mulling over the 180mm purchase and comparing it to the 100L since cost would be similar. I can't see why I would go for the 100L other than weight/size.

Your thoughts?

I rented the 180L for a trip to Florida. Heavier than my 100 (non-L) and slow as snot to focus. I ended up leaving it back in the room and using the 100 macro for most of the time.

I imagine working distance would be the main benefit of the 180. IS would be a big benefit of the new L macro.

I'm curious as to where you got: "It's the solution professionals use" I imagine that really depends on the intended use.

svarley wrote in post #13560718
...

I'm curious as to where you got: "It's the solution professionals use" I imagine that really depends on the intended use.

Just read a couple books by famous macro photographers and had a look on the web. The 180 is the preferred tool as far as I can tell.

What about 'in between' Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro Lens?

180L is a harder lens to use than 100 macro but gives much creamier backgrounds. I have both and haven't sold either

smorter wrote in post #13560780
...I have both and haven't sold either

Time to update your gear list, then

I had the 180 Sigma Macro and absolutely loved it. It's now my wife's and going strong in its eighth year. AF (with proper use of the limiter switch) is fast enough to track hummingbirds in flight - even with a (Sigma) TC! The lens is discontinued now and can be had for a good price. IQ is stellar.

If I was going to get another 180 I would get the Sigma for the faster AF, better IQ at "portrait" distances and it's cheaper which, considering it's more of niche lens, leaves money for an IS version of the 100mm macro.

My 2 cents.

As to the original question, I gave up my Sigma 180 macro because I needed something smaller and I didn't need the working distance any longer. (Also, my wife demanded it for shooting her glass beads along with the 20d she demanded from me as well. )

^ ? Typo or old lens

Can't fine 180mm Sigma Macro in B&H.

Found my own answer: "this lens has been discontinued"

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

I bought a Sigma 180/3.5 Macro (non-DG version) a couple years ago. Why did I sell it? I didn't. I've also had a 60mm EF-S macro and a Tamron 90/2.8. Still have the Tammy, but BY FAR the Sigma is my favorite. Awesome working distance, works well on my Canon 7D and Canon 1D III. I've never used the other macros since acquiring the 180. It is just that good. As far as focusing goes, I only use it in MF. Why use AF in a macro lens?

birder_herper wrote in post #13561074
... Why use AF in a macro lens?

Because you can.

twoshadows wrote in post #13561306
Because you can.

Fair enough!

Flowers being the thread-starters main focus, I'm imagine MF would probably be his choice anyways. I'm curious now to see just how fast the AF is...