Advise please on EF180mm f3.5L USM Macro

I am thinking of buying the EF 180mm f3.5L. I would very much appreciate advise on its all round capabilities.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=290542

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=86975

Here are a couple of threads that you may find helpful.

How much experience do you have with macro?

Most people who buy the 180L are after longer working distance or narrower AOV for a specific reason. What are you after?

I have been using a EF 24-105mm f4 L for close up pictures of flowers. I tried a EF 100mm macro in my local store, but was disappointed the the sharpness, taking the same item with my 24-105 gave better results when enlarged to the same size. I am also considering Kenco rings, but thought why not go for the big one being the 180mm macro. I now have 17-40mm f4L 24-105mm f4L 70-200mm f2.8L on a 40D.

[QUOTE=JeffreyG;628953​7]How much experience do you have with macro?

Sorry to answer your question.......Very little.

khall wrote in post #6289655
I have been using a EF 24-105mm f4 L for close up pictures of flowers. I tried a EF 100mm macro in my local store, but was disappointed the the sharpness, taking the same item with my 24-105 gave better results when enlarged to the same size. I am also considering Kenco rings, but thought why not go for the big one being the 180mm macro. I now have 17-40mm f4L 24-105mm f4L 70-200mm f2.8L on a 40D.

My suggestion? You do not have enough experience yet. The reasons to select the 180L over the 100/2.8 do not include the 180L being 'sharper'. The 100/2.8 is an extemely sharp lens.

If you are not getting sharp shots with the 100/2.8, it is not likely that the 180L will improve things.

What tripod are you using? What is your macro flash rig? These two items are generally the first steps to good macro images. Handheld ambient light macro tends to suck in general.

Also, at what aperture did you shoot the 100/2.8?

While I don't necessarily agree that 'you don't have enough experience', I will say I've owned a 50, 100, 150 and the 180mm macros. The least useful, for me, was the 180. It requires a VERY stable platform to get good shots. It focuses slower than many other lenses, so it's not so useful for other things.

The 180 is the sharpest, sweetest macro though. You can be 15-20" away from the bees and nasty bugs. The working distance is awesome and something I thought I really wanted. I wish I'd kept the 150 Sigma. It has a slightly faster (tho less accurate) AF. I know purists don't AF in macro but my eyes aren't as good as my 40D's AF system is. The 2.8 of the Sigma is awesome, too. Incredible bokeh. The Sigma is a great great lens.

So, the choice (of course) is yours. But to me, the 180 is just a bit too specialized, even in a specialized area. The Sigma 150 is just the best (again, in my opinion) macro out there. If money is no concern, I'd still pick the Sigma.

khall wrote in post #6289655
I tried a EF 100mm macro in my local store, but was disappointed the the sharpness

Something's not right here.

NorCalAl wrote in post #6290829
The Sigma 150 is just the best (again, in my opinion) macro out there. If money is no concern, I'd still pick the Sigma.

Seconding this. I owned the Sigma for a year and loved it..unfortunately it was stolen. It's just an absurdly good lens. It focuses quite fast at telephoto length as well -- I shot an airshow with it.

I disagree with your observation about the 100 2.8 not being sharp. I had that lens before and its one hell of a sharp macro lens. The only reason I have to get rid of it is because it is heavy for my wife doing macros so I got the tamron 90 which works very well with her.

I do macros at F11 to 16 with flash at broad daylight for garden type photography. Shooting at 2.8 will get you that soft effect because the depth of field causes only a small amount of the frame to be sharp and the rest to be blurry.

Shooting at smaller apertures with manual control of flash will give you a sharp picture of the entire scene.

khall wrote in post #6289655
I tried a EF 100mm macro in my local store, but was disappointed the the sharpness, taking the same item with my 24-105 gave better results when enlarged to the same size. I am also considering Kenco rings, but thought why not go for the big one being the 180mm macro.

This is not right!

The Ef 100mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses available - something was wrong, either technique or a bad lens. I've never heard of a bad copy of the Ef 100mm macro. Camera shake is probably the most likely cause of loss of sharpness - check and make sure your shutter speed was at least 1/160th of a second. Can you post any examples, with EXIF?

I'd recommend either the EF-S 60mm macro or the EF 100mm macro to any first time macro user. the longer lenses are great but unless you know you are going to make good use of one, you are probably better off renting one for specific projects. They are a not easy lenses to use well.

First of all I would like to thank all of you for replying. Yes the shots taken with the EF 100mm probably was not really a good test. I will go back and retry. Sorry I have not got any pictures to post as being disappointed with the shots I deleted them.
Again thanks for your responses.