Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM vs. Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

[Jargon]

I'm planning to buy a macro lens and I've narrowed my choices to either the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7400) or the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7324). Although the 180mm has the "L" designation, it is not weather-sealed. The "L" is probably just an indication that it contains expensive fluorite or ultra-low-dispersion glass. The external materials seem to be the same between the two lenses. The 100mm has the advantages of having a larger aperture and a shorter focusing distance.

The 100mm is a lot cheaper than the 180mm. But if price were not an issue, which do you think is the better macro lens?

[Saralonde]

Did you read these reviews?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-180mm-f-3.5-L-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

I have never used the 180 so it's hard for me to comment on that. But I have the 100 and find it a really excellent lens. Cost kept the 180 from being a real consideration for me.

I think if you are really into macro and can find it in your budget, the 180 is probably a good choice. It has beautiful background blur. If you enjoy macro but it's not the majority of what you shoot, get the 100. The 100 is also an excellent closeup portrait lens, the 180, not so much. The negatives I've heard about the 180 are slow to focus and weight, but you can get a little farther away from your subject.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of Canon's macro lenses. The quality is there in both of them.

[deuts]

OOooohhhh! I want to have the 100mm f2.8 Macro!

[inkista]

Here, take a peep at this dpreview Canon SLR lenses thread (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23303958), where someone asked the same question. It's got sample images from the 180mm.

If you're considering the $450 100mm and the $1200 180mm L lenses, then why not the $850 MP-E 65mm (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=46&sort=7&cat=2&page=3)? I mean, those other woosy lenses only go 1:1, while the MP-E does 5:1. :)

[terryjoey]

I have the canon 100mm 2.8 macro and Im very happy with it, very clean lens, I think it deserves a red circle around it.

[Saralonde]

I have the canon 100mm 2.8 macro and Im very happy with it, very clean lens, I think it deserves a red circle around it.

I agree, Terryjoey!

[Jargon]

Thanks for all the comments. The 100mm and the 180mm do seem to be of similar quality. Perhaps Canon simply didn't use expensive glass on the 100mm because it's not really needed.


If you're considering the $450 100mm and the $1200 180mm L lenses, then why not the $850 MP-E 65mm (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=46&sort=7&cat=2&page=3)? I mean, those other woosy lenses only go 1:1, while the MP-E does 5:1. :)
The MP-E 65mm is a manual-focus-only lens. I wonder if this is going to be a significant limitation. How useful is autofocus in a macro lens anyway?

[RexK_Cozumel]

I guess it all depends on how good you are at focusing manually. I find that I almost never use the auto focus on my macro lens. Actually only time I use autofocus on my macro is if I have the macro lens on and see something that is not a macro shot and I am too lazy to change lenses/dont have the time to change lenses ie a bird/animal that can fly/run away.

[matthewchj]

The thing about the MP-E 65mm is that it does not have infinity focus, and therefore is a pure macro lens and cannot be used for portraits. Additionally, working distance from the subject is close and gets even closer with an increase in magnification.

[inkista]

Thanks for all the comments. The 100mm and the 180mm do seem to be of similar quality. Perhaps Canon simply didn't use expensive glass on the 100mm because it's not really needed.
Most primes are very sharp, and all macro lenses are primes, so for sharpness alone, you don't need it. However, if you look at the MTF charts for the 100 and 180, the distinction between the two lenses becomes more clear.

On paper, the 180 shows improved contrast, sharpness, bokeh, and corner performance than the 100. Whether or not that translates to real-life (and cost) performance, though, is a matter of personal judgment.

100:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_100_28mtf.gif

180:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_180_35mtf.gif

In an MTF chart, the horizontal axis is a measurement in millemeters from the center of the image (i.e., the left edge describes center sharpness, the right edge describes corner sharpness). The vertical axis is contrast (1=100%, 0.5=50%). Ideally, you'd have a flat line at 1. The blue lines are at f/8. The black lines are wide open (wide open performance). Thick lines are measurements at low resolution (shows contrast), thin at high resolution (shows sharpness). Solid is meridonial, dashed is sagital (resolution on diagonal lines in different directions; the closer the MTF lines are, the better the lens's bokeh). (I took all this from The Luminous Landscape description of MTFs (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml)).

All the L primes exhibit that near-ideal squashed-to-the-top MTF. Whether lab measurements matter to you, though, is a personal call. Real life is always something different.

And just for kicks and completeness, here's the EF-S 60mm's MTF:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/efs60_mtf_chart.gif

I say the 60 could almost be an L. :)

[Jargon]

Wow, nice technical explanation, inkista! I'm always interested in the geeky stuff.

I also took a look at the MTF of the MP-E 65mm. It looks wilder than the others.
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/mp_e65_28mtf.gif

[inkista]

Yup. MTFs are fun, because they can quantify the quality of a lens. However, it's not the only measurement by which you want to look at one. And I think i have to eat my words about L primes and squashed-to-the-top MTFs. That's only for telephotos and supertelephotos. Longer lenses have a definite advantage over wider ones in terms of corner sharpness. :)

Look at the 50mm f/1.2L, 50mm f/1.4, and 50mm f/1.8 MTFs:

f/1.2L: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/EOS_2006/EF50_1_2LUSM/mtf_tele.gif f/1.4: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_50_14mtf.gif
f/1.8: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_50_18mtf.gif

It sort of makes you wonder why someone would want the f/1.2, until you stop to think that "wide open" is different on each lens.

[Jargon]

Good point on the different maximum apertures, inkista! Incidentally, I also visited earlier the Canon site to compare the MTF charts of the three 50mm lenses.

Since the lenses have different wide-open apertures, let's just consider their f/8 graphs. The 50mm f/1.2L clearly shows its quality there. And so does the 180mm Macro lens.


To those who took up photography because they hate math, we apologize. :p

[ZEROSKULL]

I think the value for 100 macro f/2.8 is good. It all depends on your genre of shooting. If you think that you going to stick macro photography then the L version would be suitable. As you know, the 100 macro is also good for potraits. Have you ever consider the MPE 65?

[Jargon]

I finally bought the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens instead of the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM lens. The main reason why I did not choose the 180mm lens is that it is not suitable for shooting without a tripod, which will be my typical outdoor setup. The 180mm also has the slowest autofocus among the Canon lenses, which might make it a bit difficult to quickly take a picture of a live insect.

The 100mm is my first non-L lens. I immediately noticed that unlike my weather-sealed L lenses, the 100mm does not have a rubber seal around its camera attachment. But that is not a disadvantage since the 180mm isn't weather-sealed either.