Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro vs. Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro

Anyone used both of these lenses? I'm curious what thoughts are. The new 100mm has IS which is nice. The 180mm will blur out the background better at higher f/stop, given same subject to background distance. I'm torn about switching to the 180mm or not.

I owned the 100L for about a year. It's a great lens; I used it for low-light stuff a lot, so f/3.5 wasn't doable. IS worked great.

Ended up selling it for a 70-200, though. The zoom just made a lot more sense to me.

FWIW, I've heard horror stories about the 180L's AF speed - not an issue for a dedicated macro lens, though. The 100 is pretty quick.

Hokie Jim wrote in post #18502120
I owned the 100L for about a year. It's a great lens; I used it for low-light stuff a lot, so f/3.5 wasn't doable. IS worked great.

Ended up selling it for a 70-200, though. The zoom just made a lot more sense to me.

FWIW, I've heard horror stories about the 180L's AF speed - not an issue for a dedicated macro lens, though. The 100 is pretty quick.

Thanks yeah the 180 is supposed to be slow. It would be strict macro as I have that FL covered for portraits by the 70-200. I could live with that.

If you want "clinical" then the 100/2.8 is probably your best bet.....but if you want "artistic" with subtle rendering then the 180/3.5 is a peach on a lens.

If you're only concerned with macro and manual focus isn't an issue then you should also consider the Zeiss 100/2 (if 1:2 magnification will cover your needs).

Bob

If it's strictly for macro, get the non L 100mm and save a few bucks.

For me the IS is worth spending extra for the L, despite what people like to say the IS' useless at macro distances, sure the effectiveness is dimished but it's sure as hell still very useful, when you sometimes shoot at beyond 1:1 (extension tube + teleconverter) like me handheld every bit helps, not to mention when you're focusing and composing having the image stabilised in the viewfinder is a godsend

Numenorean wrote in post #18502074
Anyone used both of these lenses? I'm curious what thoughts are. The new 100mm has IS which is nice. The 180mm will blur out the background better at higher f/stop, given same subject to background distance. I'm torn about switching to the 180mm or not.

You don't get the 180mm for background blur on a macro subject. You get it for the increased working distance, or potential for higher magnification of distant or small subjects.

What are you shooting?

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18502229
You don't get the 180mm for background blur on a macro subject. You get it for the increased working distance, or potential for higher magnification of distant or small subjects.

What are you shooting?

Very best,

I don't know what I'm shooting. Whatever I happen to find Probably flowers and leaves and such, perhaps small mushrooms or any other interesting thing I might come across.

I would prefer at least 1:1.

Numenorean wrote in post #18502239
I don't know what I'm shooting. Whatever I happen to find Probably flowers and leaves and such, perhaps small mushrooms or any other interesting thing I might come across.

I would prefer at least 1:1.

They both provide 1:1 reproduction ratio. The difference is the working distance.

The 180L will do it at 48cm, or 18.9 inches.

The 100L will do it at 30.5cm, or 12 inches.

Consider that approximate, assuming a full frame sensor. It's different on smaller sensors.

But basically, the 180L lets you do 1:1 from significantly farther away, which allows for more natural settings and light potential on larger subjects that are spooky. Big subjects (like butterflies, flowers, etc) can be done from over 3 feet away with this 180mm lens. And if you did it on an APS-C sensor, or used a 1.4x or 2.0x TC you could get even more distance out of it, or 2:1 magnification out of it. With a 2.0x TC you could get 1:1 basically at nearly three feet. Think about that. This is why you move towards 180mm when you need the working distance while still having the magnification.

I shot 180mm for a long time, even with a 2.0x TC just to have insane 2:1 reproduction at minimum focus distance, or 1:1 at nearly 3 feet. But, I ultimately went back to the shorter lens with image stabilization because I like being able to drag the shutter, hand held, and I found I really didn't need the working distance because my subjects were not spooky. Just my preference.

Very best,

Haven't used the 180mm myself but I'd imagine the 100mm will be easier to shoot handheld run and gun compared to the 180 and I know the AF on the 100mm is fantastic paired with a modern body I have no issues locking focus at macro distances even with ET and TC attached

Wise words from the Wise man ^^

The 100L is just a fabulous little all around lens. The IS makes it excellent for handheld natural light close ups - the IS is not, in my opinion, particularly useful for 1:1 macro handheld, where adding light makes much more of a difference.

I don't have the 180, but have often thought about it. It seems to be much more a specialty lens. It is lovely for macro, but obviously bigger and heavier than the 100L, with no IS.

Numenorean wrote in post #18502239
I don't know what I'm shooting. Whatever I happen to find

I would prefer at least 1:1.

100L.

For serious macro. the 180mm is better and further away from creepy crawlers....

But the 100mm has IS for handheld and step up as portrait...

MalVeauX wrote in post #18502253
They both provide 1:1 reproduction ratio. The difference is the working distance.

The 180L will do it at 48cm, or 18.9 inches.

The 100L will do it at 30.5cm, or 12 inches.

Consider that approximate, assuming a full frame sensor. It's different on smaller sensors.

But basically, the 180L lets you do 1:1 from significantly farther away, which allows for more natural settings and light potential on larger subjects that are spooky. Big subjects (like butterflies, flowers, etc) can be done from over 3 feet away with this 180mm lens. And if you did it on an APS-C sensor, or used a 1.4x or 2.0x TC you could get even more distance out of it, or 2:1 magnification out of it. With a 2.0x TC you could get 1:1 basically at nearly three feet. Think about that. This is why you move towards 180mm when you need the working distance while still having the magnification.

I shot 180mm for a long time, even with a 2.0x TC just to have insane 2:1 reproduction at minimum focus distance, or 1:1 at nearly 3 feet. But, I ultimately went back to the shorter lens with image stabilization because I like being able to drag the shutter, hand held, and I found I really didn't need the working distance because my subjects were not spooky. Just my preference.

Very best,

Yes both of those do, but not the mentioned Zeiss. At least from what I can tell.

Anyway I think I'll stick with the 100L. Thanks all!

MalVeauX wrote in post #18502253
They both provide 1:1 reproduction ratio. The difference is the working distance.

The 180L will do it at 48cm, or 18.9 inches.

The 100L will do it at 30.5cm, or 12 inches.

Consider that approximate, assuming a full frame sensor. It's different on smaller sensors.

MFD doesn’t change if you throw a smaller sensor behind the lens. It’s still
1:1. You just frame a 35mm or 22mm object