# Which lenses to pick up next?



## n0iZe (Jul 5, 2012)

Dear all,

I looked through the topics, however I wasn't able to find the same topic within 5 minutes, so I decided to just go for it and ask you guys.

My equipment is a 16-35mm, a 50mm and a 70-200mm.
Now however, I'm in need of a macro lens and I can't quite decide which one to pick: whether I should get myself the 100mm f/2.8 Macro with IS or pick up the 180mm f/3.5L.

Since I use a FF camera and am waiting for the 1D X, I thought probably those extra 80mm would be a nice thing for me. However I heard AF is pretty slow. Is it really that bad? I hope it's not like my old Sigma 70-300 which I've sold?! That one was ridiculously slow. All in all that was really what made me not buy the lens yet - it's still a lot of money.
The 100mm has plus regarding IS, f/2.8 and I could also use it as a portrait lens - with the 50mm I need to go too close to the subject for most shots IMO. If I'd get the 180mm I'd probably need the 85mm as well.

Any ideas what to pick?


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 5, 2012)

Is your macro work primarily indoor? or outdoor?

Are your subjects primarily static (products)? or likely to move (insects)?

The answers should help you decide. From the DigitalPicture.com:

_For most people the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens will be the ideal macro lens. It offers a reasonable working distance from the subject and excellent image quality with the added versatility/usefulness of Hybrid Image Stabilization. It has quiet, fast Ring USM AF and makes a nice portrait lens as well.

For those wanting to take their macro photography to the next level or need more working distance, the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM Macro Lens is the answer. It is well built, extremely sharp and has excellent image quality. The 180mm focal length yields are noticeably more diffuse background blur than the shorter focal length macro lenses. 

Both of these lenses offer a 1:1 magnification ratio (life-size). [I/]_


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 5, 2012)

The 100L is more versatile than the 180L. I use the 100L for macro and portraiture, esp. in situations where I don't want to bring the 70-200L. The 180L would give you more working distance but is a more specialized lens. I would suggest the 100L over the 180L because it seems to fit your needs better: it can be used effectively for portraiture and gives you macro capability on the side, and the IS is great for handhold macro work. I have a 100L and used it both on a crop and FF bodies. The working distance is a little bit less with a FF, but it is fine. If you get more serious about macro work, it would require a bit more equipment, with lights, rails and the possibly MPE 1-5x.

Sigma came out with a 180 f/2.8 macro. Canon's is getting longer in the tooth.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2012)

Tough choice! Considering only macro use, the 180L is probably a better choice due to the longer working distance (you get an extra 3.5" from the front element vs. the 100L), and more OOF blur at 1:1. The slow AF of the 180L (and it is slow!) doesn't usually matter for macro. 

For a dual-purpose macro and portrait lens, the 100L is hard to beat. 

If your 70-200 is already f/2.8, that's a great portrait lens and I'd get the 180L. Else, I'd say the 100L is the better choice. 



IIIHobbs said:


> From the DigitalPicture.com:
> For those wanting to take their macro photography to the next level, the 180L....



I don't completely agree with that statement. I think the difference between the 100L and the 180L is more nuanced. IMO, the next level is the MP-E 65mm... and after that, you need a microscope!


----------



## unfocused (Jul 5, 2012)

> The 180mm focal length yields are noticeably more diffuse background blur than the shorter focal length macro lenses.



This leaves me scratching my head. What the heck are they talking about? With macro shooting the biggest problem can be getting sufficient depth of field to capture the entire object in focus. That's why so much of the really impressive macro work you see is done through focus stacking. Admittedly, I only own the 100 L Macro lens, but I've never found insufficient background blur to be an issue. I'm much more likely to want more, not less, depth of field.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 5, 2012)

unfocused said:


> > The 180mm focal length yields are noticeably more diffuse background blur than the shorter focal length macro lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves me scratching my head. What the heck are they talking about? With macro shooting the biggest problem can be getting sufficient depth of field to capture the entire object in focus. That's why so much of the really impressive macro work you see is done through focus stacking. Admittedly, I only own the 100 L Macro lens, but I've never found insufficient background blur to be an issue. I'm much more likely to want more, not less, depth of field.



Longer focal lengths compress the image more and result in a blurrier background. Like take a 70-200 and take a picture at 70mm and then take the same picture at 200mm with the same settings will result in a much blurrier background. 

But I still don't think that's a good reason to get the 180L, and yore right the 100L blurs the background just fine and is an awesome lens.


----------



## caruser (Jul 5, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Longer focal lengths compress the image more and result in a blurrier background. Like take a 70-200 and take a picture at 70mm and then take the same picture at 200mm with the same settings will result in a much blurrier background.



Why do people always write that longer focal lengths compress the image, when they actually expand the background?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 5, 2012)

caruser said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Longer focal lengths compress the image more and result in a blurrier background. Like take a 70-200 and take a picture at 70mm and then take the same picture at 200mm with the same settings will result in a much blurrier background.
> ...



Compression will give a sense that objects are smushed against a flatter plane of view, like against a piece of paper. Its flattering for portraits and macro.

Expansion will make objects seem farther from each other than they really are. Ultra-wide for example make rooms seem larger than what they really are. Great for real estate and unique compositions when getting close.

I love 50mm's as they do neither, But back on the OP, Id get the 100mmL. Its got hybrid IS which is awesome.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 5, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> Dear all,
> 
> I looked through the topics, however I wasn't able to find the same topic within 5 minutes, so I decided to just go for it and ask you guys.
> 
> ...


 
One of the main reasons for using a longer focal length macro lens is to get more working distance. if its a situation where longer working distance is absolutely required, go for a 180L. 

Focus speed is not a issue with macro, you should be using manual focus or a focus rail.

The 100L does have the advantage of being hand holdable for close focus shots, but for exquisite closeups, its tripod and manual focus. I prefer it because of this.

There are a ton of topics about the 100L on the forum, do a search for more as well as many sample images. The 180L is expensive, and not nearly as popular, even though it is a very fine lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Focus speed is not a issue with macro, you should be using manual focus or a focus rail.



In the UK the insects have the habit of moving therefore quick AF is needed ;D ;D ;D

I have a 180 and AF works very well.

The extra focal length works well - and it takes an extender nicely.


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 5, 2012)

Dear all,

Thank you very much for all the posts, I'm very happy about that!

To answer some of the questions:
I'd mainly use the macro lens outside, and I'm not really a tripod fan to be honest. (Maybe it's because I do not really own a good one - probably should pick one up one day...)

Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
However, I do really want to get some *nice* butterfly photos. I tried that a year or so ago with a 450D and the Sigma 70-300mm - overall it was a pain.
But here's my problem: Either I go for the 100mm which is faster and has IS (I like both things there!) or I go for the 180mm granting me more working distance, however I'd have to deal with slower AF.
Perhaps the 100mm and a 1.4x or even 2x extender would fulfill my needs?
Good thing would be that I could also use that extender on the 70-200mm (which is f/2.8L IS II, to answer another question) which would at least bridge and let me find out if I'm really into bird photography or if I just want to do it because I can not do it at this point.  And if I'm really into it, I'll have to save for a 400mm I guess.

So what's your thought on the extender thing? I know image quality would suffer a bit, but in the end I prefer a picture that suffered a bit to a picture that's not there at all. 

And background blur is not the most important thing to me. Since higher background blur does also mean I have to set a higher aperture (number that is, of course the aperture itself has to be decreased) in order to get everything as sharp as I want, it's probably not the best idea. Especially not when the one with the higher background blur has no IS. :-\

Let's see what you guys think about it, I really appreciate every single feedback you guys can give me.

Thanks a lot in advance.

n0iZe


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> Dear all,
> 
> Thank you very much for all the posts, I'm very happy about that!
> 
> ...



I am not sure why you think the AF is not fast enough. When chasing moving insects keep it on Servo so it is only doing tracking adjustments - you will not see the difference between the 180 and the 180.

For moving insects your shutter speed will need to be faster than 1/500 so IS will be not needed.


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> n0iZe said:
> 
> 
> > Dear all,
> ...



Wow, I've worked too much today. I don't even think about the most simple things. Damnit.

Of course you're right, thank you very much.

Damn, I already thought I'd be close to a decision - I was wrong.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jul 5, 2012)

Have you thought about the MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
> However, I do really want to get some *nice* butterfly photos.



Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either. Usually, a 0.25x or so magnification is sufficient for butterflies - what you really need is working distance, and the 9.5" with the 180L often isn't enough. At 4-5 feet distance, you'll get higher mag with the 300/4L IS (0.24x maximum magnification, great for flowers and butterflies).


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 5, 2012)

lonelywhitelights said:


> Have you thought about the MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro ?



I have, but I'm worried about the working distance...
65mm is really really really close, so...

Do you own the lens? If so, what would you say about it?



neuroanatomist said:


> Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either. Usually, a 0.25x or so magnification is sufficient for butterflies - what you really need is working distance, and the 9.5" with the 180L often isn't enough. At 4-5 feet distance, you'll get higher mag with the 300/4L IS (0.24x maximum magnification, great for flowers and butterflies).



I prefer having a hard choice to being sorry about not informing myself enough before doing the choice part! 

Maybe the 300mm would be worth an idea too, thanks for that feedback. I just know that my 70-200 doesn't quite do the job on flowers (at least on smaller ones)... Neither on butterflies. I wonder if the extra 100mm would give me that much of a difference there. Since it adds 0.5m to minimum focussing distance, it would end up with the same as the 70-200 at 200 (1m), wouldn't it?

Maybe I do a mistake here or haven't thought about something - today doesn't seem like my day in thinking a lot... 

Anyone ever tried a 180L with a 1.4 Extender?
Would be quite an expensive solution, but I could use the extender for my 70-200 also, so maybe that would be an option?

Thanks so much for your time!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> If your 70-200 is already f/2.8, that's a great portrait lens and I'd get the 180L. Else, I'd say the 100L is the better choice.



+1 ... 100L + 70-200 is really overlapping, you could just get the non-L macro in this case. One drawback of the 180mm macro is that the af performance on the 1dx/5d3 is worse than the 100L.



n0iZe said:


> Anyone ever tried a 180L with a 1.4 Extender? Would be quite an expensive solution, but I could use the extender for my 70-200 also, so maybe that would be an option?



I'm using the Kenko 1.4x tc on the 100L, works fine, iq and af @f4 is very good. If you want the Canon extender, be sure that it fits the lens. Concerning 180+tc: A friend of mine is using this on his Nikon, seems to work pretty well for him as a combined macro and tele lens with very near focusing distance.


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If your 70-200 is already f/2.8, that's a great portrait lens and I'd get the 180L. Else, I'd say the 100L is the better choice.
> ...



That's my main problem - AF. And I'm afraid that AF could be even worse with the 1.4x Extender attached to the 180L...



Marsu42 said:


> n0iZe said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone ever tried a 180L with a 1.4 Extender? Would be quite an expensive solution, but I could use the extender for my 70-200 also, so maybe that would be an option?
> ...



I would probably go for the Canon Extender, although I've seen that the Kenko one delivers really good IQ.
Also I've seen that the 2x Extender really isn't what I want to do to my photos


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 5, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> That's my main problem - AF. And I'm afraid that AF could be even worse with the 1.4x Extender attached to the 180L...



See the 5d3 manual page 84: The af capability with the extender is still "group h", and since the af on my 100/2.8+tc works just fine I would expect the 180/3.5 do do ok, too.



n0iZe said:


> I would probably go for the Canon Extender, although I've seen that the Kenko one delivers really good IQ.



I got the Kenko one because Canon doesn't fit on their own 70-300L. If it's different with your lenses and you've got the money, of course get the original tc with sealing, though the iq isn't said to be vastly different.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> n0iZe said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
> ...



With all due respect - I believe the minimum focussing distance on the 180 is about 18 inches - and that is for 1:1 magnification


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either.



I nearly made the same comment when I read "flowers", but my experiences with butterflies are different. I have done very nice shots with my 70-300L(x1.6 on crop), but the macro shots from my 100mm(x.1.6) lenses are much better, esp. on smaller animals. When they sit still, you can crawl up to them slowly so the macro working distance esp. with the 180mm should be more than adequate - it just takes more tries than from tele range. So yes, it's not "needed", but no, shooting butterflies is a good reason to buy a macro lens.


----------



## charlesa (Jul 5, 2012)

100 mm f/2.8 L IS. Simply a beauty of a lens, both for macro and as a portrait prime. Bokeh master me calls it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > n0iZe said:
> ...



Yes, but also with all due respect, I didn't state the minimum focus distance is 9.5", I stated that is the minimum _working_ distance. MFD is measured from the sensor, ignoring the physical length of the lens. Working distance is measured from the front element - in my experience, butterflies don't get startled and fly away because the sensor is 18" away, they fly off because the business end of the lens is even closer...


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...



True - not claiming it's a macro lens. It comes down to whether or not you need 1:1 magnification for your subjects, and if, at 1:1, you can get sufficient DoF (do butterflies sit still for focus stacking?).


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...
> ...



I take butterflies from about 3ft away on the 180, more on the 1D4.

There is little in it between the 300 and the 180 - except of course the 180 will get a lot closer if needed and still gives good resolution at f/22


----------



## bvincents (Jul 5, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> Dear all,
> 
> Thank you very much for all the posts, I'm very happy about that!
> 
> ...



The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)
Flowers; go for the 100mm
Butterfly's: go for the 180 ( they tend to fly away when you get to close )
The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.
Do butterflies sit still for autofocus? No but if you get up early in the morning before they get heated by the sun,
then they will sit still. Another trick is to catch one and put it in the refrigiator for a while.
Oh by the way, checkout this guy's pictures in his gallery
http://www.juzaphoto.com/index2.php?l=en&pg=home
Happy shooting
Bjarne Vincents


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2012)

bvincents said:


> The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)
> 
> The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
> also need a ringflash.



The 100L Macro isn't compatible with the Canon extenders, either. Only primes of 135mm and longer. 

The MP-E 65mm is a great lens (one of my favorites!), but it's definitely not a casual-use macro lens. I agree that a macro flash is a big help - I have the MT24-EX (although I have done flower shots with lighting from a handheld LED flashlight).


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bvincents said:
> 
> 
> > The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)
> ...


the 100L is brilliant with the kenko extender though


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bvincents said:
> ...



What kind of magnification do you get with the Kenko's again?


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 6, 2012)

bvincents said:


> The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)
> Flowers; go for the 100mm
> Butterfly's: go for the 180 ( they tend to fly away when you get to close )
> The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
> ...



Thanks a lot for the advice, but I won't be putting butterflies into my refrigerator. Somehow it reminds me of this:






The hint for getting up early is greatly appreciated, I'll try that.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 6, 2012)

Reading around the forum this morning, I noticed this post from Marsu42:



Marsu42 said:


> Unless you need to shoot at 1:1 a lot (sounds like you don't), I'd get an extension tube and start looking at another lens. The 85/1.8 makes a great portrait lens on FF. Shooting small objects like flowers isn't "macro" in the technical sense, and any decent zoom with tubes or a tc should do just fine. As you know from your 60mm ef-s lens, real macro means that you nearly hit the object with your lens and the usable aperture goes down the drain, making either a tripod or high iso or larger apertures necessary. Good, professional macro shots are a big hassle, so for nice pictures of non-microscopic flowers you won't need a real macro lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 6, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> I won't be putting butterflies into my refrigerator. Somehow it reminds me of this



You are not far from the truth - though discussing animal rights is bordering on political, a no-go for tech geek forums: Next to the mentioned freezing and killing + glueing it seems binding down with rubber straps and anesthetizing are popular non-lethal ways to get professional shots in proper lighting :-(



IIIHobbs said:


> Reading around the forum this morning, I noticed this post from Marsu42:



People here are actually reading older posts - amazing!  ... in this thread, the op said himself that the was ok with using a standard zoom for flower shots, so the added flexibility outweights the magnification advantage of real macro lenses.


----------



## gary (Jul 6, 2012)

Take the 100L macro and you will not have any regrets, a bit of a plastic feel but IQ is superb and the IS makes it good to go


----------



## archangelrichard (Jul 7, 2012)

Ok

you want to work without a tripod

The 180 weighs 1090 grams (2 1/2 POUNDS) the 100 weighs 584 grams (1 1/4 POUNDS) (the IS version is 2 oz more). The 180 is designed to work with a tripod, has a tripod mount

Yes you can use extension tubes; (which have no glass and do not add distortion) or tele-extenders (though not recommended for shorter lenses than 135 mm many people who have done this are pleased wit the results, remember I said officially _not recommended_

In other words if you want a carry around lens get the 100, not the 180; if you are shooting subjects that do not move (and remember that plants move in the wind) - the 180 may be a better choice (and do remember that the longer a lens is the less depth of field you get at the same aperture setting)

Also note that if you are an available light shooter the difference in F stop can be significant - which brings o mind an alternative you might consider: the 85 F 1.8 lenses from various manufacturers *which, with a extension tube becomes a macro lens)


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 8, 2012)

Dear all,

Thank you very much for all your tips, opinions and discussion.

I made my decision and picked up a 100mm f/2.8L IS USM at my local Canon Pro store.
Also I got me a 1.4x Extender III to make that 70-200 lens a bit longer.

Thanks a lot.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 8, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> I made my decision and picked up a 100mm f/2.8L IS USM at my local Canon Pro store. Also I got me a 1.4x Extender III to make that 70-200 lens a bit longer.



Good time to get them with the current rebates - but still enough time to get doubts because the Kenko 1.4x tc is up to par with the Canon concerning iq & fits the 100L, too :->


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> n0iZe said:
> 
> 
> > I made my decision and picked up a 100mm f/2.8L IS USM at my local Canon Pro store. Also I got me a 1.4x Extender III to make that 70-200 lens a bit longer.
> ...



There will always be space for doubts. Everything has it's good and it's bad part, so I'll now just have to live with my decision.  If I really need the 1.4x Extender on the 100L as well I can still get me a Kenko one - and that combo is still cheaper than the 180L.


----------

