The better macro: Canon EF 100 L or 180 L EF?

Conclusion: Only the 180s for shy crawlers, for static objects (flowers, etc.) both for portraits and "normal" pictures the 100er. Who does not specifically small Viehzeug is scans better off with the universal usable 100.

In More Detail:
Speak the large working distance, the class processing and last but not least the excellent optical quality in the macro area of ​​the EF 180mm L. However, it is significantly larger and heavier than the EF 100 L and requires 72mm filter.

The EF 100mm L has the smaller working distance & diameter, is lighter, has a very good finish and also a very good optical quality. Also 67mm filter diameter are slightly cheaper. The lower price of this lens is hidden that the tripod collar D is absent (Canon 135), which I strongly recommend it. The optional lens hood can disturb quickly at 100 in the macro range, the space is still very small. With front filter completely sealed, it can also be ground supported.

But the key difference is the longer focal length of the 180: the object is fantastically set off from the background, also has less background in the image, making the composition a little easier. The 100 is still clearly visible but less free. For the longer focal length of 180 compresses the object slightly stronger, it seems minimal flat & slightly less plastic. This effect is quite subtle, the crop already apparent.

Since the F2.8 to F3.5 does not matter (1: 1), the depth of field in both cases is too low and even at F8 extremely thin. Striking is the difference in close range from 1: 3-1: 10, here the 100 sets faster at depth, but which is still very narrow. Generally, the sharpness is at 1: 1 super, Fade change the fact virtually nothing, often is anyway worked at F8, to ever have a usable focus range (or even merciless Stacking).

In the handling of smaller working distance of 100 curse and a blessing at the same time:
A curse because small crawlers often notice the presence of the photographer and flee when the lens zoom pushes them.
A blessing, because with larger objects (1: 5) less grass etc. rise (as in domestic orchids on the spring meadow). Here the large open space of 180 was more of a hindrance, but offered a visible blurring the background. The lower weight of 100 (645 g without clip to 1,090 g) leaves the hand less tired, which prevents jitter.

For photographs of flowers and other objects sedentary work I like to use a macro with 100mm or 50mm (Canon or Zeiss now). Here, the distance does not matter and I always use a tripod. AF and IS are me because no matter still. Is also 1: 1 virtually not required. The magnification The 100 changes faster than the 180, which means that the 100 is between 1: 1 and 1: 5 about 50 cm are, at 180 but 0.7 cm.

In "normal" use, the 100 is a very good lightweight telephoto, the AF is (limited to switch to> 0.5 m) 1m from even quite fast. From 3m the focus is made very short, it can be focused only quite inaccurate (35 °. To 1m-INFNTY). The entire optical system is precisely designed for short-range, not on large expanses. The AF-limiter at 30-50 cm I almost never because working here typically use manually.

Both L macro set to F4 easy to focus on, then they are very sharp and - equally important - very contrasty. The sharpness of the contrast seems subjectively at 180 minimally better, possibly on 100. But the differences are in the homeopathic area.

The EF 100 L with AF and IS a very good all-round flexible lens that can be used very well for portraits, etc. (and often is). Here AF and IS played their strength and also clearly justified. In this respect, the limited mounting the EF 180 L without IS and with his telephoto lens, the more specific objective and the 100.

Apart from that we were doing something wrong with either of them.