# Will we see a refresh for the Canon 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro?



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 29, 2014)

On the list of things I hope to acquire in the near future is some macro equipment. The 100mm Canon with IS is a no brainer, when I will buy it - I have no idea. Maybe in 5 minutes... maybe in 5 years. However, I've seen the amazing bokeh that the 180mm is capable of... all I can say is... SCHWING!

I'm surprised though. It came out in 1996. It's been 18 years. The only rumor I found about a refresh involves a DO version. (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/patent-canon-ef-180mm-f3-5-do-macro/)

What is the obstacle to IS and making this lens faster? What are the chances of seeing a refresh any time soon?

I know there's a rumor that next year there will be a bunch of primes released, but there was also a rumor that this would be the year of the lens... so I don't want to get my hopes up.

Is this lens just not worth the investment to Canon because of poor sales or something along those lines?


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> 'm surprised though. It came out in 1996. It's been 18 years.



Doesn't mean anything with Canon, look at the 50/1.8 lens they're still producing.

I'd very much like to see an IS version of the 180mm macro because the working distance of the 100L is rather short on full frame and a good ~200mm prime would be a terrific dual-use lens for wildlife with IS and today's cameras iso capabilities. Alas, this might be just the reason they *don't* release it: The current 180L is 1500€, the (admittedly faster) 200L 6000€. Go figure.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > 'm surprised though. It came out in 1996. It's been 18 years.
> ...



There is always also faster 200/2.8L, which is optically awesome, but lack IS just as the 180/3.5L, but also cost a fraction of the venerable 200/2L IS  I'm still inclined to buy it for landscaping, because I hate the weight of my 70-200/2.8L II (basically the only thing I dislike about that lens  ).


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2014)

Khalai said:


> because I hate the weight of my 70-200/2.8L II (basically the only thing I dislike about that lens  ).



This is 1/3rd of the reason why I didn't buy it (the others length & $$$). A camera+70-300L+flash is about the max. weight I'm willing to lug around all day outdoors. More weight would mean completely different handling, at least for me.



Khalai said:


> There is always also faster 200/2.8L, which is optically awesome, but lack IS just as the 180/3.5L, but also cost a fraction of the venerable 200/2L IS



One thing I've learned from using my 70-300L is that IS is invaluable at these focal lengths - not for reducing shutter speed alone, but for stabilizing the frame = less safety margin = more usable resolution / more sharpness. Of course IS doesn't matter at macro distance, handheld or not, but if you don't get Canon's great IS system you can go for a 3rd party manufacturer right away.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 29, 2014)

There have been rumors off and on every since the 100L came out. Canon is able to keep new lens plans from leaking even better than the plans for new bodies. Canon seems to be still concentrating primarily on video, so I expect to see new lenses that are dual purpose still / video.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 29, 2014)

Sigma makes a 180mm f/2.8 macro lens with optical stabilization, and my impression from the TDM comparison is that the Sigma has better IQ, so I doubt there's a technical obstacle.

The obstacle might be in the upgrade's expected profits. Could be the lens doesn't sell well, or Canon expects investing in upgrading another lens / making a brand new lens would be more profitable.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > because I hate the weight of my 70-200/2.8L II (basically the only thing I dislike about that lens  ).
> ...



I use it for portraiture and weddings, never took it for the hike for the reasons you already mentioned. 70-300L also intrigues me as a travel lens. Half the weight, 50% reach, same build and reliability, cannot care less about the f-stop for landscapes anyway  But as I already have five lenses, this seems overkill to me, for that money I might as well get Fuji X-A1 with 16-50 and 50-230 lenses for travelling - if I wanted to invest in another system, which I don't


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2014)

Khalai said:


> same build and reliability



Not exactly, the 70-300L is an external zoom which makes it less reliable - no matter the build quality, you keep pumping air (and humidity and dust) into the lens. That's why I'd favor primes like a 180L which would still be lighter and probably shorter than the 70-200L. With Canon's hybrid IS and L sealing it would be an instant classic.

Ot, Canon also didn't grace the 70-300(!)L with a focus limiter switch the 70-200(!)L has ... thanks, Canon . Imho a seldom mentioned, but important real difference is that the 70-300L has a "radial" and less smooth bokeh because the front opening is only 67mm vs. 77mm on the 70-200L ... and this shows no matter how stopped down it is.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > same build and reliability
> ...



Thanks for the info, never much thought of these little, but probably a bit annoying, differences. Internal zoom is indeed a nice thing to have as is the distance limiter (although at weddings, I have it on 1.2m all the time anyways). Bokeh would not be much of an issue for landscaping, at least for me.

But as you pointed out, 200/4L IS USM Macro lens would be totally awesome. I'd switch over my 100/2.8L instantly, this would be my light telephoto lens choice for travels


----------



## NancyP (Aug 29, 2014)

The lens is a beast. I am used to the weight, it is similar to that of the 400mm f/5.6L, but the weight can be off=putting, especially when compared with the relatively dainty and multi-purpose 100 f/2.8 L IS. I love the color and the bokeh and the working distance of the 180, but I surely don't love the weight.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > 'm surprised though. It came out in 1996. It's been 18 years.
> ...



You misunderstood. I'm not surprised that they're still producing the lens. I own a copy of the nifty fifty made the early 80s (back when it was FD mount). However, Canon has released other 50mm lenses since. Canon hasn't released another updated version of this focal length with macro since it came out.

And I'm glad I'm not alone thinking that with IS and bringing the speed to at least half a stop faster, this lens would make a great dual purpose lens (although I would primarily use it for macro).


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 30, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> And I'm glad I'm not alone thinking that with IS and bringing the speed to at least half a stop faster, this lens would make a great dual purpose lens (although I would primarily use it for macro).



Apart from wishful thinking, I doubt it though that with IS it will be faster. Much more likely it'll be f4 because the IS mechanism takes space and you'll end up with a even heavier lens with a large front diameter. Last not least, newer lenses seem to be designed for high mp cameras, so adding up this would be a 200L-like price tag.

Canon has shown on their latest IS releases that they think with the extended iso capability of newer cameras, f2.8 or even faster is not really necessary for the wide market. And for macro, I agree - f2.8 on the 100L on ff is so thin it's only good for effect shots.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 30, 2014)

I, on the other hand, do find IS helpful for macro. 

I shoot handheld, pre-focus with IS enabled. 

Just had 6 of 8 tendons 'relocated' surgically, needless to say that I'm not super stable on my legs but IS is a plus. 

I would say, make sure the IS mechanism is engaged about 1/2sec prior to taking your shot though, as there is 'recoil' if you snap sooner.


----------



## hollybush (Aug 30, 2014)

This lens was the reason I chose Canon over Nikon. It hasn't disappointed me.

I carry this lens on long hikes for macro photography. It's heavy, yes. If I'm not planning to do macro photography I take the lighter 70-200mm f/4 IS instead. I rarely use it for other than macro, although I have shot some birds and architecture when I had it with me for macro.

About the only improvement I think it could do with is weathersealing and a reduction in weight. Still, mine has survived some light rain so it maybe isn't that necessary. The heavy construction may, or may not, make it more robust. I wouldn't like Canon to add IS, as it could affect the bokeh. The occasions when I run out of shutter speed but only by 2-3 stops are fairly few; I work about 50:50 handheld–tripod.

Judging by the serial no. on mine, bought 7 years ago, they don't sell that many. You could be waiting a long time for an update, and, as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing as it ensures a continued parts supply.


----------



## tat3406 (Sep 2, 2014)

The reason I choose 100L over 180L is the price and weight, if Canon reduce this two spec, I will buy one to replace my 100L.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 4, 2014)

Having just taken some macro photos of a slightly scared wild snake, I appreciate (and the snake appreciates) the working distance of the 180mm macro. The most recent snake portrait was of a hog-nose doing its characteristic neck flare (make like a cobra) display - "hey look at me, I am BIG" - it makes when spotting a stranger. I didn't have the heart to panic it to view its ultimate reaction to threat, which is to roll over and play dead. I have seen photos of individuals of this species playing dead.

When I shot macros of a venomous wild snake ("cottonmouth" aquatic rattlesnake), I really appreciated the generous working distance given by the 180mm plus 1.4X TC. The snake just sat there sunning itself and wondering what the fuss was about, didn't offer threat behavior. Cottonmouths threaten by opening their mouths wide to expose the white lining of the mouth, hence the nickname "cottonmouth". Next step after the gape is the strike.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 5, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Having just taken some macro photos of a slightly scared wild snake, I appreciate (and the snake appreciates) the working distance of the 180mm macro. The most recent snake portrait was of a hog-nose doing its characteristic neck flare (make like a cobra) display - "hey look at me, I am BIG" - it makes when spotting a stranger. I didn't have the heart to panic it to view its ultimate reaction to threat, which is to roll over and play dead. I have seen photos of individuals of this species playing dead.
> 
> When I shot macros of a venomous wild snake ("cottonmouth" aquatic rattlesnake), I really appreciated the generous working distance given by the 180mm plus 1.4X TC. The snake just sat there sunning itself and wondering what the fuss was about, didn't offer threat behavior. Cottonmouths threaten by opening their mouths wide to expose the white lining of the mouth, hence the nickname "cottonmouth". Next step after the gape is the strike.



You wouldn't happen to be in the sunshine state would you?


----------

