Which macro lens to buy?

Canon 5D users:

I know that the selection of a good lens is critical for this camera due to full frame sensor. So would you recommend buying Canon 100mm/f2.8 or Canon 180mm/f3.5 for macro work with this camera? Prime objective is superb pictures.

Both are great lenses. The 180L costs $1200.00 where the 100 costs $470.00

Learn & Grow,
Both lenses are fine on a FF camera. I personally choose the 100mm because it makes many more hand held shots possible (less weight, smaller size & smaller cost ).

The 100 is more versatile, making an excellent portrait lens as well as a good macro.
the 180 L is much more specialised, slow and heavy, not really any use as a telephoto.

The longer focal length translates as increased working distance from the subject. Magnification for both lenses is 1:1 at minimum focusing distance.

EF100
EF100
EF100!

http://aerosmith.smugm​ug.com/gallery/1818874

http://aerosmith.smugm​ug.com/gallery/1495356

i want that ef 100 so bad

Learn & Grow wrote in post #2001487
Canon 5D users:

I know that the selection of a good lens is critical for this camera due to full frame sensor. So would you recommend buying Canon 100mm/f2.8 or Canon 180mm/f3.5 for macro work with this camera? Prime objective is superb pictures.

I like the 180L for the distance to subject advantage it has. Particularly good if you work with insects, etc. As Canon sys in its literature, the lens can capture details you have no chance of seeing with your naked eye. I mostly have shot from a tripod, so lack of IS is not a problem. In bright light, it makes a fair telephoto as well.

Both very sharp optics. Or consider the Sigma 150EX also, which is not only uber-sharp but you get a nice hood and collar too.

For the money, the EF 100mm f2.8 macro is superb.

Mark

canon 100 mm f2.8 macro outstanding lens.

Looks like the 100 macro would be best

I own both. You mention "Superb Pictures" as your objective. It pretty much determines what you will be doing. If you will be shooting insects, the 180 will definitely be more "Superb" because of its added working distance. Actually, it will give you more "Superb" pictures all around. Yes it is more money, weighs more, is harder to handle etc. but it definitely has an edge on the 100 in color, contrast and sharpness.It also takes teleconverters very well. So, even though the 100 f 2.8 macro is a fine lens and I would never consider selling mine, overall the 180 is a little better.

Both the 100 and 180 are excellent lenses. I would recommend to most the 100mm for the size and weight aspect, it has about the right working distance, ideal for insects, remember you may also be using a macro flash for insects and the all up weight can get troublesome. Insect shooting with a tripod is frustrating work except in a few special circumstances.

The 180 gives more working distance which sounds like a good idea for insects but is often not all that practicle due to undergrowth etc. For lower magnification work on flowers the WD may be too large. The weight etc would be a problem for extended use.

I wouldn't want the 180 to be my only macro lens because of these points. Although I do quite hunger after the 180 for shy subjects where I need more WD I can either
(i) Use a 2X TC on the 100mm (with a small ext tube between the TC and lens for compatibility with the Canon TC)
(ii) More often use the 300 f4 IS with tubes for things like Dragons and Damsels.
So I wonder how much I would really use the 180 if I did have it, at least I would have the set.

Finally, note that both lenses get to life size on their own, with a 2X TC they can get to 2:1, with say 60mm of tubes the 100mm gets to about 2.2:1, not sure about the 180, but probably 1.5:1. If you are really interested in insects you may want to get to 3:1 or 4:1 in which case the MP-E 65mm is your best bet. WD is VERY short with the MP-E but people manage to get first rate shots with it - check out the macro section and in particular posts by LordV.

buy mine i need the money