100mm or 180mm macro?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The 180 would be necessary for bees & skiddish bugs that run away if you
get too close.


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.
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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.

Sigma have very nice 180mm 1:1 macro. Judging from the slides I've seen
from a talented friend of mine, it is a very good lens.

>
> 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?

One problem with macro shooting is light. The 180 will allow you more
room to control and get light onto the subject. The 100mm is not bad at
all, the 50mm macro is tougher.

Note that regardless of focal length, the image size on the sensor of a
50mm 1:1 macro is the same as the image size on the sensor of a 180mm
1:1 macro. The perspective of the 180mm will be flatter, of course.

On DOF, it should be the same at 50, 90 and 180, since to make the same
'framed' shot at 180mm you have to be about twice as far away, so for a
1:1 macro shot the DOF will be the same for all lenses for a given
subject in the frame at the same size.

Finally, the 100mm will be more usable as a portrait lens than the 180.

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

--
-- 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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news7af0o$sak$1@inews.gazeta.pl...

>
> 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.

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

Thanks
Musty.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"grenner" <regencytr1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:119i6rr477othda@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> newsg7me.6978$j51.6651@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> >
> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news7af0o$sak$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Also, I like the idea of doing hand-held macro-shots, so perphaps the
> > 180's are not for me right now...
> >
> > Thanks
> > Musty.
> >
>
> I have looked at the Canon 100mm and own the Tamron 90mm, infact I have
> owned one in one form or another for about 20 years.
>
> I do not think that the Canon 100mm is really worth the extra dollars and
it
> is a bit more bulky.
>
> Greg
>

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Hils" <hils@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:M0GvxWAVjSmCFwAk@newearth.demon.co.uk...
> 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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:B6ame.6991$PR6.1860@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Hils" <hils@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:M0GvxWAVjSmCFwAk@newearth.demon.co.uk...
>> 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.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Ellis" <blackhole@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:B4cme.2926$MI4.1433@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.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/vie [...] _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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news7af0o$sak$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>
>>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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <B6ame.6991$PR6.1860@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>
>"Hils" <hils@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:M0GvxWAVjSmCFwAk@newearth.demon.co.uk...
>> 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 <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news7cl90$7ef$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Musty wrote:
>
> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news7af0o$sak$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> >
> >
> >>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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>
> Musty wrote:
>> "David Ellis" <blackhole@nospam.org> wrote in message
>> news:B4cme.2926$MI4.1433@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.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
>>


"Nicholas Wittebol" <nicholas.wittebol@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:cpCdnfI6SuIeUwTfRVn-3g@rogers.com...
> 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!

Zooms will always tend to have poor quality of out of focus areas. One
measure of this Bokeh is said to be the ratio between the ratio between
sagittal and meriodional MTF which tends to be large for zooms.

These are true macro prime lenses and should have very good quality. The
focal length will not make any difference at higher magnifications.

Lester

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <429accbf$0$16431$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:

>Zooms will always tend to have poor quality of out of focus areas. One
>measure of this Bokeh is said to be the ratio between the ratio between
>sagittal and meriodional MTF which tends to be large for zooms.

The Canon 100-400L has a big difference there. Things that are truly in
the background or foreground are fairly smooth, but twigs that are
crossing each other, for instance, in the fringe areas just outside the
DOF, can look a bit weird.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><