Macro Dilemma:EF100 or 180L

I would appreciate advice from macrophotographers who have used both lenses: which one to pick based on lens IQ ?

I have seen countless images posted on PBase with each lens, and I am sure both lenses are excellent. So in order to save the bandwith, please do not post images taken with either unless they are comparison images for both by the same photog.
I have no interest at this time in any third party offerings.
I am also aware of general considerations one can glean from the lens specs such as working distance, lens speed, lens weight/size, price etc.

The key for me is a comparison of their respective image quality and sharpness. So, if I decide to fork out that much extra money for the 180L, it would be very disheartening to find out some day that the lens is neither sharper nor gives better contrast and colours than the 100 f/2.8.

It seems that the 100 f/2.8 gets hi marks everywhere on the net.
The 180L reviews are more mixed: well respected Photozone does not speak about its sharpness in very flattering terms. Maybe they had a bad copy, who knows ?

go for the 100...has a 2.8 ap
much lighter and will be MUCH easier to work with handholding...I think that beastly 180 will be really rough handholding.
My sigma 150 is VERY sharp and very good..could be a good in between for you.
Plus thae price of that 180 is SO much more. and I dont think you are getting that much more for the price.

That's what worries me more than anything else......so much of high L price is justified thru their better build and exotic glass elements.....but....bu​t....it is really the IQ and lens operability which is paramount.
I mean lens sturdiness and longevity is good too, just that one has to have priorities somewhere......I am sure the 100 f/2.8 is very well built too.

plus with that 180...you are going to need much higher shutter speeds.
My sigma 150 is hard to master and its alot lighter and less range. I would iamgine that 180 would be even harder.

lensview,
I personally decided to go for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 for a number of reasons:
1. hand held shots are much more possible!
2. getting more then 1:1 macro is much more possible! (with extension tubes, tele converters or both)
3. fits in my camera bags much easier!
4. price of 100 is 2/3 less then the 180
Sharpness can also differ between cameras ex macros taken with my 5D are sharper then from my 10D.
So in the end my arms, my wallet and my photos are greatful for my decision
Good Luck with your choice

Yeah, that beast of the 180L is probably very hard to hold steady enough to cope with its miniscule DoF. Unless one consistently shoots with high end apertures and has plenty of light/flash.

In the end, the lens might really neccessitate tripod mounting at all times in order to take advantage of its arguably better IQ.
Hmmm....I do not have very good feelings about that....

I own the 180L.

I can't compare with the 100 because i have never used it, however i can give you a take on the 180.
The main thing which prompted me to get this was the working distance, i found that my mpe just didn't allow enough distance, too many of the insects arachnids etc are sometimes skittish.

The optical qualities are overall very good i would say, i wouldn't go as far to say they are amazing, the sharpness of the lens is pretty much reached from wide open with slight increase in performance stopped down. CA on the other hand is another story, i would say its ever lower than my 300 2.8 "which i considered one of my lowest CA lenses"
The lens also has an amazing performance at the edges/corners. wide open or stopped down i have noticed no lack of resolution.

At non macro distances i find the lens very sharp, there is a drop in the close focus, or perhaps a perceived drop, i can only test it against the mpe and it equals the performance of that.

The Af speed is much debated with the 180L, if using as a normal telephoto with the focus selector switch enabled it is actually very fast, when it hunts though that takes and age, its so slow it makes the 85L MK1 seem fast. Overall an inconsistent story when it comes to focus speed.

Overall i'm happy with the purchase, the working distance is certainly desirable, the overall IQ is breathtakingly good, if it was as sharp as say my 35L then it would prob be the best Canon lens, however its still sharp enough. I do agree that its harder to get a shot without camera shake with this lens, I'm finding the need of a tripod almost essential to guarentee that, even when using the mt 24ex.

Hope any of this helps

You can also consider non-Canon macro lenses like the Sigma, Tamron or Tokina offerings. I made the same sort of decision like you a few days ago and bought a Tokina 100 f/2.8. Nice lens.

The thread were the new lens is discussed:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=214570

P.

baybud wrote:
I own the 180L.

I can't compare with the 100 because i have never used it, however i can give you a take on the 180.
The main thing which prompted me to get this was the working distance, i found that my mpe just didn't allow enough distance, too many of the insects arachnids etc are sometimes skittish.

The optical qualities are overall very good i would say, i wouldn't go as far to say they are amazing, the sharpness of the lens is pretty much reached from wide open with slight increase in performance stopped down. CA on the other hand is another story, i would say its ever lower than my 300 2.8 "which i considered one of my lowest CA lenses"
The lens also has an amazing performance at the edges/corners. wide open or stopped down i have noticed no lack of resolution.

At non macro distances i find the lens very sharp, there is a drop in the close focus, or perhaps a perceived drop, i can only test it against the mpe and it equals the performance of that.

The Af speed is much debated with the 180L, if using as a normal telephoto with the focus selector switch enabled it is actually very fast, when it hunts though that takes and age, its so slow it makes the 85L MK1 seem fast. Overall an inconsistent story when it comes to focus speed.

Overall i'm happy with the purchase, the working distance is certainly desirable, the overall IQ is breathtakingly good, if it was as sharp as say my 35L then it would prob be the best Canon lens, however its still sharp enough. I do agree that its harder to get a shot without camera shake with this lens, I'm finding the need of a tripod almost essential to guarentee that, even when using the mt 24ex.

Hope any of this helps

Thank you, Baybud.
I can see that the 180L would not make the most suitable basketball or birding lens because of the AF performance. But that's not my concern.
The CA input is very valuable.

Do you ever actually shoot it w/o pod ? If so, under what conditions, what camera settings ? Dual macro flash ? Would the 580 EX be good too ?

lensview wrote:
Thank you, Baybud.
I can see that the 180L would not make the most suitable basketball or birding lens because of the AF performance. But that's not my concern.
The CA input is very valuable.

Do you ever actually shoot it w/o pod ? If so, under what conditions, what camera settings ? Dual macro flash ? Would the 580 EX be good too ?

I honestly couldn't tell you how it would be with the 580.
I vary my shooting, sometimes i use it with manual camera mode with ettl on flash and select high enough shutter speed to block out ambient light, other times i use AV and use the mt24 as fill in.
It must be said though i often have shaky hands so what i perceive as a problem with hand holding may not be for others.

I own both the 100 f 2.8 and the 180 f 3.5. They are both excellent lenses. If I had to give one an edge I would give it to the 180 both for color and sharpness. Macro is a different game altogether and learning to use the lens whatever it is will take time. Previous responders to this thread have said the 180 would probably be too heavy etc when in reality it is no heavier then the 70-200 f 2.8 and this is hand held all the time. Granted it is no featherweight but it can be hand held. At times I use both of my macros with the MT24 EX twin speedlight which is a real gift for macro photgraphy allowing the photographer to balance the lighting and cut down on the shadows and black background that makes some macro photos so obvious. It also allows shooting at a very small aperture and fast shutter speed eliminating worries about camera or subject movement. Now back to your question. Before I broke down and spent money on my 180 I owned the Tamron 90mm macro and the Sigma 180mm macro. Both are pretty good lenses. I also tried the Sigma 150mm macro and while very sharp Ididn't feel the color was very good and the f22 aperture as opposed to the f32 on most macros created lens difraction possibilities. I love my 100 but I love my 180 more. It is truly a very fine lens and it should be for the price. I would recommend the 180 if you are going to shoot insects as you will need the working distance. If you are strapped for money you can use the 100 with a 12mm extension tube and a 1.4 teleconverter. The lens will be manual focus but most macro is done with manual focus. Good luck on your choice.

Thank you Larry. When in doubt, get both. At least that's what I am currently thinking.
The 180L weight does not concern me a lot either, my main reservation re the 180L relates to the lens test report by Photozone.

I have the 100 but not the 180 mostly due to the size an weight of the 180. However I understand from tests that the 180 is probably better at macro distances than the 100, you can't go by the photozone tests etc as these are not at macro distances and the lens aberations will be quite differnt.

However, I would say you are more limited by depth of field for sharpness unless copying a flat object like a coin so I would worry more about handling weight and working distance and if you will work handheld or on a tripod mostly.

You may find this review of interest.

Lester Wareham wrote:
I have the 100 but not the 180 mostly due to the size an weight of the 180. However I understand from tests that the 180 is probably better at macro distances than the 100, you can't go by the photozone tests etc as these are not at macro distances and the lens aberations will be quite differnt.

However, I would say you are more limited by depth of field for sharpness unless copying a flat object like a coin so I would worry more about handling weight and working distance and if you will work handheld or on a tripod mostly.

You may find this review of interest.

Thank you, Lester, you may have a good point about the PZ test of the 180L....the lens might have been optimized for macro distances at the expense of "normal" FL's. However, PZ rates both the EF 100 and EF-S highly, using the same test method.
That linked article is very interesting and comprehensive....shoul​d try to read it agin in original German because the Google translation is almost incomprehensible.

lensview wrote:
Thank you, Lester, you may have a good point about the PZ test of the 180L....the lens might have been optimized for macro distances at the expense of "normal" FL's. However, PZ rates both the EF 100 and EF-S highly, using the same test method.
That linked article is very interesting and comprehensive....shoul​d try to read it agin in original German because the Google translation is almost incomprehensible.

Your German is a lot better than mine.

You might also find my servey of Canon macro kit interesting.