# Recommendations for a 180mm macro?



## RKW (Apr 30, 2013)

I am attempting to decide between Canon 180mm F3.5L and the Sigma 180mm F2.8 and would appreciate any advice or recommendations. I shoot predominantly wildlife and want to use this lens for butterflies and small plants and flowers. I like the fact that the Sigma is a 2.8 versus the Canon 3.5 and also like the fact the Sigma has image stabilization. Any thoughts on this or has anyone used both of these lenses?


----------



## DanoPhoto (Apr 30, 2013)

I have not used the Sigma, but did own the Canon 180L. It is a tremendous lens with great IQ, but heavy to handhold for an extended period of time. Ideal for tripod/studio work, but without IS/OS, it has its limitations in the wild.

I sold it and purchased the 100L, primarilly due to teh HIS feature. Sure I need to get a bit closer to the subject, but overall, I am happy with the change.

I would push you toward the Canon because the L glass keeps great resell value.


----------



## BrettS (Apr 30, 2013)

I have the Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro; I have never tried the Sigma.

I can only tell you that I would re-purchase the Canon 180 again in a heartbeat if I lost/damaged mine. The extra reach is great with critters.

I have no issues with lack of IS, however, a tripod is requisite for the money shots.

Probably my single favorite lens in my collection.


----------



## kirispupis (May 1, 2013)

I owned the 180L in the past, but sold it due to poor IQ. The Sigma looks interesting, though they tend to have a huge variance in quality.

Personally I get by just fine for butterflies/flowers between my 100L macro and 300/4. The 300/4 has .28x native magnification and with an extension tube easily does .38x. This works for me for butterflies, larger flowers, and lizards. When I need to be closer I just use the 100 macro. For flowers I also sometimes use a TS-E 90.


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2013)

I saw this the other night and thought I'd add my 2 cents and something funny. I have the Canon 180mm and love it. It has the best contrast and color of any lens I own (I have A LOT of L glass) and I find the sharpness perfectly acceptable, especially if you use good technique. If you do macro beyond 1:2, IS is about useless because you pretty much have to use a tripod to get sharp and in-focus photos. Being able to use the Canon extenders is great, too.

All that said, I recently forgot my macro and had to use my 70-200 2.8 IS II to shoot some flower gardens for a client. After tons of garden shots, I threw on my 25mm extension tube and snapped a couple of close ups. My client didn't say a word about the garden shots (the subject of my shoot!) but loved my macros... Clients always surprise me!


----------



## Frodo (May 4, 2013)

I know that this does not relate to the lenses you mentioned, but... I'm happy with my EF200/2.8L on a EF25mm extension tube for butterflies and flowers- you get to about 1/3 lifesize. Lightweight, fast focusing, great bokeh when near wide open. Sharper than my 70-200/4 with tube. But no IS. For anything smaller I use my 50/2.5, but the distance is too close for critters. FWIW, I tried the Canon life-size converter (brings the 50/2.5 to 1:1) with the 200. This increases shooting distance a bit, but does not increase maximum magnification much, is no sharper, and does not allow AF.


----------



## aznable (May 5, 2013)

RKW said:


> I am attempting to decide between Canon 180mm F3.5L and the Sigma 180mm F2.8 and would appreciate any advice or recommendations. I shoot predominantly wildlife and want to use this lens for butterflies and small plants and flowers. I like the fact that the Sigma is a 2.8 versus the Canon 3.5 and also like the fact the Sigma has image stabilization. Any thoughts on this or has anyone used both of these lenses?



i saw ths revew un lenstip.com and they are enthusiastic about the sigma, but the prce is very high...or was at the time of review

http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=355


----------



## RGF (May 10, 2013)

BrettS said:


> I have the Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro; I have never tried the Sigma.
> 
> I can only tell you that I would re-purchase the Canon 180 again in a heartbeat if I lost/damaged mine. The extra reach is great with critters.
> 
> ...



Agree except my favorite lens is the 500 F4


----------



## Ew (May 10, 2013)

I've been using a 135L +1.4xII for stage performances lately with great success... not to hijack the thread, but would adding an extension tube to it allow for a usable macro combo?


----------



## ZoeEnPhos (May 10, 2013)

Ew said:


> I've been using a 135L +1.4xII for stage performances lately with great success... not to hijack the thread, but would adding an extension tube to it allow for a usable macro combo?


 
Dear Sir,

Adding my two cents.....

I am mainly using the excellent EF100/2.8L IS USM Macro, (bokeh/versatile/excellent IQ) but also the EF 135mm f/2L sometimes with the ExtensionTube ET25II and sometimes with both ET25II+ET12II.

The latest addition will be the the Canon 500D Close-up Lens, to be used together with the Canon EF 135mm f/2L, ( but I am still void (I have placed and order coming soon) of a step-ring-adapter to use the 77mm Canon 500D (using it on my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II, because, if you are carrying a non-macro lens, and you want macro capabilities, without the added weight and size of a macro lens, the Canon Close-up Lens 500D could maybe be a perfect option for you in these cases?

Anyhow - the quality of the pictures taken for example with the Canon 100mm Macro Lens I suppose will be even better compared pictures using the Canon 500D Close-up filter.

I have not used the excellent lens of Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro.
The closest long-focal-lenght-macro-lens that I have used is my excellent yet non-L-lens the old Canon FDn 200mm f/4, together with an adapter FD to EOS, on my 5DMkII during the last spring season, and I like what that lens can do!

However having the EF 50/2.5 with the Life-sizer, the EF100/2.8L IS USM Macro, the EF 135/2L and also the EF300/4L IS USM and in addition the both Extenders III//Extension Tubes II, I do not see the real benefit of even adding the great Canon EF180/3.5L Macro lens to my lens collection today! (The 180mm is quite heavy and you need to carry of lot outdoors if you also have this lens in your backpack).

But if I would not have any of macro lenses from Canon, I still think that my first choice, would most likely be the new Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro.
This lens is an extremely fun lens to use! It combines excellent image quality with a useful focal length, a relatively small/light body, fast/quiet AF with 1:1 (1x) macro capabilities, - and HIS (Hybrid Image Stabilization).
But it depends what you prefer to photographing!
However the Sigma 180/2.8 might be interesting but it is quite heavy (3.6 lb (1.63 kg)).
It would be nice to test this lens because of its abilities to create a beautiful bokeh!
Wish you sir the best choice that will suite your needs all the way!

Greetings from Sweden,
C

Adding one photo captured with 5DMK3 + EF100mm f/2.8L IS USM handheld with f/2.8 ISO640/handheld resting the camera body on the ground.


----------



## risc32 (May 10, 2013)

but for the high price, I'd rather have the sigma. I'm sure they are both more than sharp enough, with the nod going to the sigma if you really want to split hairs, but i'd be more interested in it over the canon simply due to the IS. 180mm + macro focusing distances = handholding problems, for me anyway. plus for macro stuff i don't use AF, so i don't care about any potential sigma AF gremlins.


----------

