180mm 3.5L or 100m 2.8L?

Which should I get? Haven't heard much of anything in terms of good or bad for the 180, but have heard pretty much nothing but good things about the 100. I mostly macro shots of spiders, flies, bees... literally any sort of bug actually :]

I sold my 180 L for the new Sigma 180 2.8 with stabilization, I love it

pmarz wrote in post #15960225
I sold my 180 L for the new Sigma 180 2.8 with stabilization, I love it

Better than the L? And/or the 100?

YES. I had the Canon 100, Canon 100 IS, the SIgma 150, 150 OS and now the 180 OS. Gene

Megapixel123 wrote in post #15960200
Which should I get? Haven't heard much of anything in terms of good or bad for the 180, but have heard pretty much nothing but good things about the 100. I mostly macro shots of spiders, flies, bees... literally any sort of bug actually :]

I have the 180/3.5 and the 100/2.8 No-IS, No-HSM. They are both great. I found the IQ and the longer minimum distance of the 180/3.5 to be better. However it is heavy and big, and impressive, and an L lens. I use the 100/2.8 when I need to bring the macro lens just in case, it is good for macro and as medium tele objective. When I just want to do macro, the 180/3.5. I have not used the Canon IS, or HSM.

https://photography-on-the.net …92295&highlight​=sigma+180

Megapixel123 wrote in post #15960231
Better than the L? And/or the 100?

I also own the 100 L and love it. It comes down to preference on fl. I would pick the Sigma 180 2.8 if I was to keep one only. Thats my only non-Canon lens fwiw.

I have both and use them on both crop and FF cameras.

If you are shooting with a crop sensor camera, the 100mm would be my recommendation for general purpose macro photography. 180mm is an extremely long macro lens when used on a crop camera. I can't recall the last time I put my 180 on a crop camera. I use the 100 on crop a lot.

If you are using a full frame camera, the 100mm also works well as an "all purpose" macro, but the 180mm is useful if shooting something where more working distance is needed (i.e., things that bite, sting or are particularly shy).

180mm is a lot harder to work with than 100mm. DOF is much shallower, so you are likely to need to stop down more, which in turn means using slower shutter speeds and more likely wanting to use a tripod, or at least a monopod.

Also, both the 100mm Canon macros are more "dual purpose" than the 180mm. Macro lenses are typically noticeably slower focusing than comparable focal length, non-macro lenses. Noth the current 100s have reasonably fast USM focus and focus limiters, that help speed up AF a lot. They are only slightly slower focusing than non-macro lenses. The 180 also has USM and a focus limiter, but they don't help as much. As a result, IMO it's not terribly useful - or at least less useful - for non-macro purposes.

If you decide to get a 100mm, you still have to choose between the 100L and the 100/2.8 USM (non-L, non-IS). I have the latter and would rather put the money saved into a tripod mounting ring (sold separately), than spend the extra for the L/IS. I don't really need IS on a macro lens, since I often use a tripod, monopod and/or flash. But, some people really like the L. Pepe mentions the original Canon 100mm (no USM, long discontinued now), which is slower focusing, but has top image quality and a nicely recessed front lens element (less need for a lens hood).

Both the current Canon 100s give great image quality, so you don't have to be concerned about that. The L/IS also has a slightly more sophisticated focus limiter and it comes with the lens hood (the non-L/IS lens' hood is sold separately), but the L/IS tripod mounting ring (sold separately for both the 100s) is more expensive.

There are a lot of very good macro lenses... If you are going to be looking at third party options, the new Tamron SP 90/2.8 VC USD should be quite nice. They will still be offering the less expensive non-VC, non-USD version, too... which is a modern version of a superb lens that's been around for two or three decades.

Crop only, there are the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 and Tamron SP 60/2.0, both of which are pretty compact compared to the Canon 100s and various 180s. The Tamron also enjoys that unusually large f2 aperture, which should make it even more useful for dual purpose (esp. portraiture), than the usual f2.8 (or slower) macro lenses.

Maybe someone should mention about how Canon does not include a hood nor a rotating tripod collar - Sigma includes both. Both I consider necessary.

gasrocks wrote in post #15961760
Maybe someone should mention about how Canon does not include a hood nor a rotating tripod collar - Sigma includes both. Both I consider necessary.

The IS on the 2.8 is the absolute difference

Sorry, but that's not true.

The Canon 100L and 180L macros both do include the hood. The 100/2.8 USM does not (it's sold separately... and is rather large!).

And, the Canon 180L does includes the tripod mounting ring. However, for both the Canon 100mm macro lenses the tripod ring is optional, not included but available separately. (Again, Canon's t'pod rings are pricey... especially the Ring "D" for the 100L. But there are cheaper third party clones).

Maybe I overlooked something, but I'm not aware of any other 90, 100 or 105mm macro that can be used on Canon EOS that can even be fitted with a tripod ring.

Hey, I'm a big fan of IS... Have used a number of tele lenses with it for over ten years. I swear by it and have gotten shots that I otherwise wouldn't have, thanks to IS. I also thought that it would be a great idea to put IS on macro lenses, back before anyone did so. However, Nikon found out quickly when they introduced the first macro lens with stabilization (VR in their terms) that it offered little real assistance at high magnifications. The newer Canon 100L uses a hybrid form of IS that's a bit better and good for about one stop's worth of assistance at high magnification, but might be helpful to the tune of 3 or more stops at non-macro shooting distances. I have no idea how Sigma's OS compares to Canon's IS or Nikon's VR. My personal take on IS (or VR or OS) is that on a macro lens it's just not worth nearly double the cost. I don't know... Maybe it would be more effective on a 150mm or 180mm macro lens, either of which are harder to hand hold steady than a 100mm. And someone else, especially someone who uses their macro lens a lot for non-macro shooting, might find it more valuable and worth the extra expense. But personally I'd rather (and did) put some of the money saved into a tripod mounting ring... which I consider far more essential for macro shooting.

SIgma 150 OS, the OS is good for about 1.5 to 2 stops for macro. Sigma 180 OS, the OS is good for 4 stops at all distances. Of ocurse, I am usually using a monopod, never a tripod. Yes, Sigma 180 OS works on a tripod.

I have the 180, 100 USM (none-IS) and MP-E.

I would say the best place to start is a 100mm macro lens, specially for most bugs. The IS some find it useful, other don't.

The 180 I mostly use when I want a tighter perspective with larger subjects like butterflies and dragonflies, also on a tripod for flowers etc.

Take a look in the macro photo sharing and talk areas for more thoughts.

You have to be careful how you handle the 180/3.5, you may hurt yourself, it is too sharp:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/palenquero/8477​098793/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/palenquero/8480​988466/

Just came inside from shooting on this dark and dreary morning. No wind and great light though. The Sigma 180 OS is wonderful. Using a monopod, 60D, I am getting sharp pix below 1/10 sec. Sometimes that beats running the ISO up. Tripod collar is something I would not to be without. Wow. Gene