I've owned both a 100mm and (currently) a 180mm, although neither were Canon models. I used them on 1.6x crop factor digital bodies, and I much prefer the extra working distance afforded by the 180mm lens.
As for brand, I think both the Sigma and Tamron are well-respected performers that are generally considered to be the equal of the Canon offering at a greatly reduced price. Certainly, the choice of brand is yours, and there are other factors like resale value and long term compatibility, but I think optically you won't be disappointed by any of the three. Another choice might also be the Sigma 150mm, which offers additional working distance but in a package considerably shorter than the 180mm models. Personally, I have the Sigma 180mm. It's not heavy, but is a large, long lens, very similar in size to the Canon. I've considered "downsizing" to the 150mm, but it would not be for optical reasons. It's certainly a subjective rating. but if you look through the user reviews on Fred Miranda's site, you'll get some feedback on the merits of each, and see that they are all rated highly (8.1, 9.1 and 9.8 on a 1-10 scale) for the Tamron, Sigma and Canon version. Enjoy your search! Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Tom Christiansen > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: EOS 100/2.8 vs 180/3.5 macro > > Probably an oldie but goldie, but here goes: > > I used to have a 100 mm macro lens for my Contax system and > am considering getting something similar for my 10D. I'm > somewhat torn between the 100/2.8 macro and the 180/3.5 > macro. I'm aware of the obvious tradeoff regarding price. > > I would definitely appreciate the bigger working distance and > smaller field of view (fewer background distractions) of the > 180, but I'm a bit concerned that the depth of field might be > rather shallow due to the longer focal length. Obviously, > part of the point of macro photography is to isolate the > subject via shallow depth of field, but still... > > Have any of you tried the two lenses? What has been your experience? > > Is the depth of field for macro photography dependent on the > lens focal length or the magnification? > > Thanks, > > Tom * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
