# So which one has better image quality, 180mm



## USM IS (Feb 7, 2010)

Canon USM macro L, or the new 100mm USM IS Macro L?.......Mike


----------



## Overread (Feb 7, 2010)

Neither - whilst the canon 100mm IS L does add some good new features (like internal focusing, image stabalization and teleconverter compatability) its image quality is not really that different from the original 100mm macro. Any differences present will only really show up in a controled studio test shot and then factors such as manufacture tollerances will lead to more differences.

In addition outside of the studio test setup = real world shooting = you won't notice much if any image quality difference as a result of the glass alone - however shooting methods, lighting and such will have a far more dramatic effect.


----------



## fokker (Feb 8, 2010)

In my mind, image stabilization would be immensely useful on a macro lens and enable some excellent shots to be had that would be a struggle otherwise.


----------



## Overread (Feb 8, 2010)

Very true - however mount each lens on a tripod or use a fast enough shutter speed and flash when working handheld and the image quality each lenses glass can create is not vastly different. 

The IS feature is a great boon to have for certain, though its only around 1 or two stops of IS at the macro distances its still very good to have indeed. However one has to balance that against the other features on offer - like the longer working distance of the 180mm macro.
Also as a point the canon 180mm is not half as popular as the sigma 180mm which also achives the same level of image quality, but is lighter and significantly cheaper


----------



## Derrel (Feb 8, 2010)

fokker said:


> In my mind, image stabilization would be immensely useful on a macro lens and enable some excellent shots to be had that would be a struggle otherwise.



What's odd though, is that Image Stabilizer from Canon and Nikon's Vibration Reduction--which use totally different approaches and are actually different--is not very useful at close-up distances. The mathematics of it all are complicated and kind of beyond me, but the "experts" in optics, as well as the camera makers, both point out that the in-lens optical image stabilization becomes markedly less-effective as the lens is focused closer and closer, and by the time the lens is in the close-up to macro range, the stabilizing effects of IS are significantly lower than at Infinity and other long focusing distances.

Even though scientifically, and practically, a stabilized macro lens offers very little advantage over a non-stabilized lens at MACRO ranges, the public LOVES stabilized lenses,and many people use tele-macros as general-purpose telephotos, where the stabilizing systems DO have a big positive impact.


----------



## wescobts (Feb 9, 2010)

I take what Derrel says as to be true... well because he's Derrel, also because I saw two IS macro lenses as walk around lenses this past weekend. I asked the owners and they love them, both on cropped sensor cameras. I shoot the 60mm macro lens as a walk-around sometimes.


----------



## GregR (Feb 10, 2010)

So how about the better thread of how to talk the wife into letting you buy all the lenses


----------



## USM IS (Feb 13, 2010)

GregR said:


> So how about the better thread of how to talk the wife into letting you buy all the lenses



When I die, don't let my wife sell my equipment for what I told her it cost me..........Mike


----------

