100mm or 180mm macro?

Musty wrote:
All,

I would like to add a macro lens to my "arsenal". There are many choices
(Canon, Tamron, Sigma). I shoot with a 20D so I have the 62% cropping.

Now, all the lens makers seem to make 100mm f2.8 and 180mm f3.5

Can anyone tell me under what application one might go for the 180mm? I
noticed that Canon only make the 180mm as the "L". I also found that Tamron
have a just as good 180mm for about half the price.

It seems to me that 180mm is more useful since you can get more close-up
shots. Does the 1.6x crop factor steer me more towards the 100mm?

My goal for this lens is shooting bugs and flowers and droplets of water
etc.

Thanks
Musty.


I've done a lot of shooting with the Canon 180 on a 10D and
I would not want to trade it for something else. It's
autofocus is a bit clunky when compared to other "L" lenses
I use. I think it's been around a while. But image quality
is quite good.

http://ellisisle.com/gallery_3/view_pages/crw_10067.htm

Some EXIF data are wrong. The subject distance for this shot
is recorded as 5.18 meters when it was actually closer to
one meter. This kind of error is common when using a digital
camera with an undersized sensor.

As you consider alternatives to Canon brand for your 20D,
ask yourself whether, without being sent to a service
center, the off-brand will be electronically compatible with
the 30D, the 40D and...
--David

I don't know about the Tamron, which was also redesigned fairly recently,
but the latest Canon 100/2.8 macro is entirely internal focusing. The front
element does not rotate and the length of the lens does not change, and of
course it's also USM, which allows you to use custom function 4 to shift AF
to the AE lock button. I find that really useful as most often I wouldn't
use AF for macro work but it is handy when using the lens at longer
distances.

Geoff Bryant
www.cfgphoto.com

"Musty" wrote in message
...

"Hils" wrote in message
...
Musty wrote

Right now, I will most likely get the Tamron and not just because it
looks
better .... but it really does look better...

Unless the Tamron has changed (again) since I tried it about six months
ago it doesn't have full-time manual focusing (the Canon does) and a
clutch mechanism (against Canon's switch). The lenses handle so
differently that you really ought to try them both before buying.

--
Hil

Is it also true that this lens (barrel) actually moves externally while
focusing?

Musty.

"Musty" wrote in message
...
All,

I would like to add a macro lens to my "arsenal". There are many choices
(Canon, Tamron, Sigma). I shoot with a 20D so I have the 62% cropping.

Now, all the lens makers seem to make 100mm f2.8 and 180mm f3.5

Can anyone tell me under what application one might go for the 180mm? I
noticed that Canon only make the 180mm as the "L". I also found that
Tamron
have a just as good 180mm for about half the price.

It seems to me that 180mm is more useful since you can get more close-up
shots. Does the 1.6x crop factor steer me more towards the 100mm?

My goal for this lens is shooting bugs and flowers and droplets of water
etc.

Thanks
Musty.



I have the 100mm Canon and am very happy with it. A nice thing is you can
use the 20D internal flash with it and get f22 iso 100 at higher
magnifications.

The advatage of the 180mm is in working distance for nervous bugs and , in
the case of the Canon version, being able to use the Canon converters with
it (to get 2X mag at a good working distance)

I went for the 100mm as it doubles as a useful general photography lens and
I can manage ambient light shots of flowers with it.

I would'nt preclude getting the 180mm Canon in the future, though. But I see
this as a more specialist lens.

Lester

"David Ellis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Musty wrote:
All,

I would like to add a macro lens to my "arsenal". There are many choices
(Canon, Tamron, Sigma). I shoot with a 20D so I have the 62% cropping.

Now, all the lens makers seem to make 100mm f2.8 and 180mm f3.5

Can anyone tell me under what application one might go for the 180mm? I
noticed that Canon only make the 180mm as the "L". I also found that
Tamron
have a just as good 180mm for about half the price.

It seems to me that 180mm is more useful since you can get more close-up
shots. Does the 1.6x crop factor steer me more towards the 100mm?

My goal for this lens is shooting bugs and flowers and droplets of water
etc.

Thanks
Musty.


I've done a lot of shooting with the Canon 180 on a 10D and
I would not want to trade it for something else. It's
autofocus is a bit clunky when compared to other "L" lenses
I use. I think it's been around a while. But image quality
is quite good.

http://ellisisle.com/gallery_3/view_pages/crw_10067.htm

Some EXIF data are wrong. The subject distance for this shot
is recorded as 5.18 meters when it was actually closer to
one meter. This kind of error is common when using a digital
camera with an undersized sensor.

As you consider alternatives to Canon brand for your 20D,
ask yourself whether, without being sent to a service
center, the off-brand will be electronically compatible with
the 30D, the 40D and...
--David

I am still thinking about which one to get ... thanks for all the
information. I may end up with Canon in the end due to the internal
focusing, FTM and compatability/resale.

Musty

Will the 180mm make the background of the macro shot look more circular
than the 100mm would? Or is it the other way around? Or does this not
happen at all?

Just wondering, because when shooting with my Dad's Canon AE-1 and an
80-200mm Macro lens, the background looks like it is spiralling out of
control when I use a large aperture.

Sorry for the newbie question!

Musty wrote:
"David Ellis" wrote in message
ink.net...

Musty wrote:

All,

I would like to add a macro lens to my "arsenal". There are many choices
(Canon, Tamron, Sigma). I shoot with a 20D so I have the 62% cropping.

Now, all the lens makers seem to make 100mm f2.8 and 180mm f3.5

Can anyone tell me under what application one might go for the 180mm? I
noticed that Canon only make the 180mm as the "L". I also found that

Tamron

have a just as good 180mm for about half the price.

It seems to me that 180mm is more useful since you can get more close-up
shots. Does the 1.6x crop factor steer me more towards the 100mm?

My goal for this lens is shooting bugs and flowers and droplets of water
etc.

Thanks
Musty.



I've done a lot of shooting with the Canon 180 on a 10D and
I would not want to trade it for something else. It's
autofocus is a bit clunky when compared to other "L" lenses
I use. I think it's been around a while. But image quality
is quite good.

http://ellisisle.com/gallery_3/view_pages/crw_10067.htm

Some EXIF data are wrong. The subject distance for this shot
is recorded as 5.18 meters when it was actually closer to
one meter. This kind of error is common when using a digital
camera with an undersized sensor.

As you consider alternatives to Canon brand for your 20D,
ask yourself whether, without being sent to a service
center, the off-brand will be electronically compatible with
the 30D, the 40D and...
--David


I am still thinking about which one to get ... thanks for all the
information. I may end up with Canon in the end due to the internal
focusing, FTM and compatability/resale.

Musty

Musty wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...


Having said all that ... scout around for a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. It
is very good a macro, and is very good at portraits as well, given the FL
and smooth out-of-focus characteristics.

Cheers,
Alan



Would you put the 90mm Tamron as better than the Canon 100mm f2.8? The
Tamron sells for $480 @ B&H and has a $40 rebate. Looks like a real nice
piece of hardware.

Either yes or a draw at macro distances. The advantage of the Tamron is
its dual role use as a portrait lens or mid telephoto lens due to
smooth oof (bokeh) rendering. The Canon can do portrait too, of course,
but not as nicely as the Tamron.

Either lens will serve you well, so don't agonize either way.

Also, I like the idea of doing hand-held macro-shots, so perphaps the 180's
are not for me right now...

Macro can rarely be done handheld while controlling focus plane. If you
have enough light to shoot at small apertures, then moreso. But macro
really focuses the attention of the print viewer on detail and the
slightest movement creates fine detail destroying blur that you would
not notice very much in other photography.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718085 here, as you can see, the
focus is on parts of the petals and on the anther/stamen area of the
blossom. (This is not really a macro just damned close, about 1:2).
The depth of this blossom is less than 1 cm. I did handhold this shot
(about 5 or 6 frames) and this is the only usable image. I had A/S as
well to help, so this shot is kind of like 1/400s in non A/S terms.

macro is really a tripod mounted art.

For that matter I use a ball head, which is not ideal for macro, esp at
1:1. I will eventually get a geared fore-aft travel device for 1:1
focus control. This device used with a geared or 3-way allows very fine
control of the shot.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

In message ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Having said all that ... scout around for a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. It
is very good a macro, and is very good at portraits as well, given the
FL and smooth out-of-focus characteristics.

It also out-resolves DSLR sensors with the Tamron SP 2x converter
(that's how sharp the new Di version is). All you lose is some light,
as an effective 180mm f/5.6 2:1 macro. Of course, if you really do the
2:1 with it, you'll want a shutter speed of at least 1/640 to 1/1000, or
flash.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
"Musty" wrote:


"Hils" wrote in message
...
Musty wrote

Right now, I will most likely get the Tamron and not just because it
looks
better .... but it really does look better...

Unless the Tamron has changed (again) since I tried it about six months
ago it doesn't have full-time manual focusing (the Canon does) and a
clutch mechanism (against Canon's switch). The lenses handle so
differently that you really ought to try them both before buying.

--
Hil

Is it also true that this lens (barrel) actually moves externally while
focusing?

Yes, but the lens sits so far from the subject, that you won't bump into
it.

--


John P Sheehy

Musty wrote:

I would like to add a macro lens to my "arsenal". There are many choices
(Canon, Tamron, Sigma). I shoot with a 20D so I have the 62% cropping.

My goal for this lens is shooting bugs and flowers and droplets of water
etc.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3401265

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Musty wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...


Having said all that ... scout around for a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. It
is very good a macro, and is very good at portraits as well, given the
FL
and smooth out-of-focus characteristics.

Cheers,
Alan



Would you put the 90mm Tamron as better than the Canon 100mm f2.8? The
Tamron sells for $480 @ B&H and has a $40 rebate. Looks like a real nice
piece of hardware.

Either yes or a draw at macro distances. The advantage of the Tamron is
its dual role use as a portrait lens or mid telephoto lens due to
smooth oof (bokeh) rendering. The Canon can do portrait too, of course,
but not as nicely as the Tamron.

Either lens will serve you well, so don't agonize either way.

Also, I like the idea of doing hand-held macro-shots, so perphaps the
180's
are not for me right now...

Macro can rarely be done handheld while controlling focus plane. If you
have enough light to shoot at small apertures, then moreso. But macro
really focuses the attention of the print viewer on detail and the
slightest movement creates fine detail destroying blur that you would
not notice very much in other photography.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718085 here, as you can see, the
focus is on parts of the petals and on the anther/stamen area of the
blossom. (This is not really a macro just damned close, about 1:2).
The depth of this blossom is less than 1 cm. I did handhold this shot
(about 5 or 6 frames) and this is the only usable image. I had A/S as
well to help, so this shot is kind of like 1/400s in non A/S terms.

macro is really a tripod mounted art.

For that matter I use a ball head, which is not ideal for macro, esp at
1:1. I will eventually get a geared fore-aft travel device for 1:1
focus control. This device used with a geared or 3-way allows very fine
control of the shot.

Cheers,
Alan.


Thanks for clearing that up. Nice shot BTW.