If you're using them for macro, the 180mm is definitely better, coz it allows more working distance and produces a more flattering bokeh. And for macros, you'll usually use a very small aperture, so 2.8 or 3.5 doesn't really matter.
If you're using them for macro, the 180mm is definitely better, coz it allows more working distance and produces a more flattering bokeh. And for macros, you'll usually use a very small aperture, so 2.8 or 3.5 doesn't really matter.
Thats one cheaper way to increase the working distance a bit. But the 2x TC is known to degrade the quality abit. To what extend i'm not too sure, thou.
Thats one cheaper way to increase the working distance a bit. But the 2x TC is known to degrade the quality abit. To what extend i'm not too sure, thou.
The 100/2.8 macro is sharp, but it is not in the same league the 180/3.5L. If you check out the Canon's published MTF of the 180/3.5L, the difference is obvious. This L lens is almost in the same class as Canon's 2.8 telephoto primes - from wide open.
The 100/2.8 macro is sharp, but it is not in the same league the 180/3.5L. If you check out the Canon's published MTF of the 180/3.5L, the difference is obvious. This L lens is almost in the same class as Canon's 2.8 telephoto primes - from wide open.
Goodness... How in the world did you ever come to such a conclusion?!! I think the culture of comparing lenses and camera equipment collection is getting out of hand in our community...
Goodness... How in the world did you ever come to such a conclusion?!! I think the culture of comparing lenses and camera equipment collection is getting out of hand in our community...
Big means better .. hahah ... paiseh ... .quite new to all these techincal stuff ....
like you know some people think 2.4 intel P4 is better than a 1.3 intel centrino ... High number means better .... which is not true at all.
