Does anyone have any > experience with > this lens, > or would the 180/ F3.4 be a better choice? > Cheers Wilber Jeffcoat
I have the 100 Macro USM, and I love it. When comparing this to the 180 3.5L, (only in specs) I'd say save your money and go with the 100 for a few reasons. 1) The 100 is a very sharp lens already! Ask yourself if you really need L glass for what you're doing. (and the 80mm) 2) I'd use the "extra" money you could spend on the L lens to buy macro accesories. (ring light, extension tubes, diffusion panel, etc..) 3) Personally, I love blurring out the background in my macro shots sometimes, and 2.8 will to more of that than 3.5. And 2.8 is better in low light than 3.5. (but in this case, if you're shooting T-Max 6400, or whatever, to achieve the grain look, low light won't be a problem) 4) The 100 is an awesome portrait lens. (read: more of a general purpose lens than a 180) And again, I love blowing out the background at 2.8 on my portraits. Just my 2�w. -Green __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
