If I can come up with a little extra money, would you recommend the 180mm? I would like to get some nice field pics of animals, especially of an Eastern Diamondback someday. I like to go out herping, for pictures mostly. I would also like to take some quality pictures of hatchlings, if I produce any this year, for my new website that is being built.

I don't know that I would get the 180 as my primary macro lens. Yes, it still allows you to be 18 inches away at 1:1, but remember that is taking the photo of something the size of a postage stamp. However, you will rarely be shooting pictures of something that small. When you start trying to include the whole animal, suddenly you have to be 6 feet away or more. That makes animal control a lot more difficult. The shorter focal length allows you to stay within range more readily.

For wiggling hatchlings, I would much rather have a 105 than the 180. Remember, I have a 90mm and a 180mm macro and my 180 rarely sees the light of day. I shoot almost all my herp shots with my 90mm.

The shorter focal length also cuts down on the telephoto compression which causes things to look closer together than they do to the naked eye. So for example, if you Eastern Diamondback happens to be coiled photogenically under a saw palmetto, when you look with the naked eye the palmetto leaf looks like it is 3 feet in front of the snake, but in the telephoto it looks like it is right on top of the snake. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it isn't.

If you already had the 105 (or similar macro), it would be a no brainer - get the 180. But if you are only going to have one macro lens, the 150 is a better compromise, IMHO.

Also remember that you can shoot from further away and crop a little bit. You don't need to fill the frame with your subject's eye to get an eye shot.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]