View Full Version : Test Shots - 180L Macro.
When I was shopping for a macro lens, after much soul searching I bit the bullet and went for the Canon 180L Macro. My choice was largely swayed by the fact I wanted it to double as a pin sharp medium range tele lens with the equivalent FOV of 288mm on a 1.6X sensor and 234mm on a 1.3X sensor. Coupled with an f3.5 aperture it promised to be a reasonably fast general purpose lens apart from it's macro capability.
I've been more than satisfied with it's macro ability, but still haven't really tested it's worth as a mid range tele, so having some welcome sunshine this morning for a change, I thought it was time to give it a test. All the shots are hand held at around 1/500 sec at 5.6 and ISO 400 using auto focus. Where I've cropped from the original, I've deliberately cropped away from the centre of the image.
Fulll frame
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8826-1/fullframe.jpg
100%crop
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8829-1/crop.jpg
Full frame
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8832-1/trellis.jpg
100%crop
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8835-1/trellis+crop.jpg
Full frame
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8838-1/fullframe+bokeh.jpg
100%crop
It produces really nice bokeh when conditions are right.
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8841-1/bokeh.jpg
I'm pretty chuffed with the results, and found the AF just as quick as you'd expect from any EF lens in good light, and even more chuffed that I got it for a great price from 7dayshop while they were still selling Canon gear. :)
Now that's pretty nice!
How's it done on contrast/saturation? The only one I can see the possibility of it is in the 100% crop of the brickwork but that may actually be as it is.
How much was it in the end?
I haven't played with the levels at all Sammy. They're all jpegs and apart from the usual minor sharpening, they're just as they came out of the camera. I have sharpening disabled in the camera.
I got it for £829..... currently £1019 at Warehouse Express.
*!cough!* 'ow much!
You lot have far too much money! :)
Congratulations on your new lens CT. What's the minimum focal distance?
Defo seems very sharp!
Did you read the comparison test in AP recently?
Congratulations on your new lens CT. What's the minimum focal distance?
I 've had it some time actually Ash. :)
Well it has a sliding focus limiter switch with positions for Macro and Normal use.
Normal - minimum focusing distance is marked on the lens barrel as 1.5m. which I would say is just about spot on.
Macro - minimum focusing distance is marked on the lens barrel as 0.48m, but I find in practise I can get a lot closer, probably under half that distance.
As long as the focus limiter switch is in the right position, AF is pretty rapid, but if it isn't the system gets VERY confused! :D
Defo seems very sharp!
Did you read the comparison test in AP recently?
Nope? Don't tell me it was crap. :D
Yes, they said give it to me immediately!
^^^ :D ^^^
Let's see - I'll have to think about that! :coffee:
No, don't think about it, just do! Honestly, you can trust me!
digitalfailure
08-02-2006, 17:46
CT it's true m8, it got a terrible write up in AP
This really is a truely awful lens and Canon have said they will reimburse owners of it when their copy arrives at digitalfailure's descruction centre.
I'll Pm you the address to send it to :D
Nope? Don't tell me it was crap. :D
The compared it with the Sigma and Tamron equivalents.
The Canon and Sigma both scored 90%, while the Tarmon scored 91%. Bacially it was a very close call between all of them. The Tamron scored slightly higher on performance, with identical scores in other areas for each lens.
The problem with the Canon is that it is around twice the price of the other two. Definitely a very strong lens though. :)
pmsl at you guys. OK you've talked me into it - I'll raffle it off. :D
Thanks Joe. I'm not surprised, there isn't a bad lens there anyway and the Tamron has an awesome rep. :)
I'll raffle it off.
Stick me down for a pounds worth.
Stick me down for a pounds worth.
Steady Ken - have you checked with 'er indoors? ;)
busterboy
08-02-2006, 19:20
Awesome lens CT.:thumb:
I was torn between getting the Canon 180mm and the lens I settled for the Sigma 150mm APO DG Macro.
Having read about the comparisons between the two I just couldnt justify the extra money on the CanonL unit although it is the ultimate in macro lenses IMO...:)
You just need the MT-24EX now mate...:D
Well the verdict seems to be very impressive but I have to say it doesn't look great to me. It doesn't look bad but I suspect it will fall someway short of something mid range like the 70-200 f4L.
I can't recall any macro stuff you've done with it but I'd wager it's pretty bloody excellent at it's prime function.
I'd be very interested to see the same shots from something else in your arsenal at a similar focal length. Even though it would probably prove me totally wrong. :whistle2: :D
Are you saying you think the L prime will be worse than a L zoom because it is designed for macro?
Yeah, pretty much.
My thoughts were macro will be what it's designed for and going out beyond that range takes it out of it's comfort zone.
If you take large format lenses as an example, most ranges will have something like a 120mm and a 120mm macro. Since minimum distance is only a matter of how much extention you have between the front and rear standards any lens can produce macro shots. The macro versions are designed to produce results at close distances but wont match the performance of the standard version beyond a few feet.
Perhaps things are similar in the SLR world?
Ah, right, I understand. Makes sense really.
:)
Stick me down for a pounds worth.
I'll have £2 worth, as long as one of them is the winning ticket.:D
digitalfailure
08-02-2006, 21:51
Yeah, pretty much.
My thoughts were macro will be what it's designed for and going out beyond that range takes it out of it's comfort zone.
If you take large format lenses as an example, most ranges will have something like a 120mm and a 120mm macro. Since minimum distance is only a matter of how much extention you have between the front and rear standards any lens can produce macro shots. The macro versions are designed to produce results at close distances but wont match the performance of the standard version beyond a few feet.
Perhaps things are similar in the SLR world?
I'm not convinced by this m8 :) I have the 60mm macro....much shorter focal length I grant you, but it's as sharp as a sharp thing on everything it's focused on, in fact it's rapidly becoming my fave lens spending equal amounts of time on my 20d as the 17/40L. With a 1.6crop body it takes it to 96mm and makes it a fantastic portrait lens.
I'm not convinced by this m8
No, me either....
... but it's a theory that fits the facts (as they appear to me) and that was enough to make me wonder.:)
It's a given fact that LF lenses are designed differently for macro work and dont work as well at distance. In the same way that a macro lens for an SLR is generally accepted as being a higher quality option than extention tubes.
What would be great would be getting some comprable macro and non macro lenses together for direct comparisons.
Well the verdict seems to be very impressive but I have to say it doesn't look great to me. It doesn't look bad but I suspect it will fall someway short of something mid range like the 70-200 f4L.
Outside of it's macro range, I would expect it to be out -performed by a quality zoom, so no argument form me. ;) That's not to take anything away from the lens's usefulness as a good mid range tele lens. I had a Pentax 100mm macro yonks ago and it was a great walk around lens for just that reason.
I'd be very interested to see the same shots from something else in your arsenal at a similar focal length. Even though it would probably prove me totally wrong. :whistle2: :D
That would have to be the 100-400L then. I might just do that, should be interesting, but I know my 100-400L is a cracker. :D
I can't recall any macro stuff you've done with it but I'd wager it's pretty bloody excellent at it's prime function.
Any excuse to post some more pics. :D
http://www.tpfgallery.com/gallery2/d/8964-2/Crane_Fly_1.jpg
http://www.tpfgallery.com/gallery2/d/8970-2/Crane_Fly_3.jpg
http://www.tpfgallery.com/gallery2/d/8921-2/bee_01.jpg
http://www.tpfgallery.com/gallery2/d/8973-2/daddio_filtered_filtered.jpg
shiato storm
08-02-2006, 23:02
nice shots, been considering the sigma 105...nice little lens.
Well the verdict seems to be very impressive but I have to say it doesn't look great to me. It doesn't look bad but I suspect it will fall someway short of something mid range like the 70-200 f4L.
I can't recall any macro stuff you've done with it but I'd wager it's pretty bloody excellent at it's prime function.
I'd be very interested to see the same shots from something else in your arsenal at a similar focal length. Even though it would probably prove me totally wrong. :whistle2: :D
Just for you then, although it's an interesting exercise anyway.:)
Both shots were taken from a tripod which wasn't moved between shots. The 100-400L was set to the same focal length as the 180L - the slight difference in FOV is just down to the optical differences. Both shots were taken on the 1D in AV Mode-exposure for both was 2.5 secs at f8, using a cable release, mirror lockup and closed viewfinder blind. IS was turned off on the 100-400L for the tripod shot.
The first two shots are showing the full frame view of each shot, and both have had a one shot sharpen having been reduced in size quite drastically. Otherwise they're straight out of the camera - jpegs.The two crops are totally unsharpened.
180L Full Frame
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8844-1/180L-full-frame.jpg
100-400L Full frame
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8847-1/100---400L+-full-frame.jpg
180L 1:1 Crop
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8850-1/180L-crop.jpg
100-400L 1:1 Crop
http://www.tomkinson.org/gallery2/d/8853-1/100---400L-crop.jpg
The 100-400L shows the better contrast out of the camera, but it's a couple of mouse clicks to sort that out with the 180L. The 100-400L has the edge on sharpness but it's not a night and day difference, and neither crop shot has been optimally sharpened, which is routine procedure anyway.
I think the 180L acquits itself rather well, and given it's slight aperture advantage, I'd have no qualms whatsoever in using it in it's mid range tele configuration.
lol some old classics on that shelf there CT :)
If the tripod wasnt moved how come the pics arent the same ? ;) (lol dont worry im a pedantic bast**d lol)
Nice examples though, and it certainly looks like it does the job ! :)
I'm not convinced by this m8 :) I have the 60mm macro....much shorter focal length I grant you, but it's as sharp as a sharp thing on everything it's focused on, in fact it's rapidly becoming my fave lens spending equal amounts of time on my 20d as the 17/40L. With a 1.6crop body it takes it to 96mm and makes it a fantastic portrait lens.
The 60mm is a fantastic lens, I had one when I had my 350D and was gutted it didn't fit my 5D, so had to sell it.
digitalfailure
09-02-2006, 19:58
I actually prefer the images from the 180 there :eek2:
I actually prefer the images from the 180 there :eek2:
Me too, that lens looks like a fantastic bit of kit :)
Thanks for makign the effort there CT. :)
Not had a chance to do more than pass by for the last week or so. Those shots do look very good and certainly prove that the lens has more uses than just macro.
I still cant help but wonder if it would fair as well at a greater distance. :whistle2: :getmecoat
I shall test it at greater distance in due course - rest assured. Probably when it's warmer though. :D
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.