>Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:43:35 -0800 >From: Tom Christiansen <[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
I've had both lenses, currently using the 180 since I sold off the 100. I was perfectly happy with the pictures I got with the 100, but I find the 180 a much more 'usable' lens. Aside from the issues you mention, such as greater working distance and the smaller field of view, the other big difference between the two is the tripod foot. The foot on the 180 is an integrated piece. On the 100, it's an add-on (read that as afterthought). It does not operate smoothly. It is also not designed to handle much weight. I've actually had the lens pop out of the tripod foot when I used it with a full-size Canon 1 series camera in a vertical position or with extra extension tubes. Paul Wasserman * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
