[kansonchan]

請問對以上這支鏡有什麼意見?

好處... 唔好處!
值嗎?

[gaiuswong]

唔好處~ 貴囉!
好處~ L鏡有三塊UD低色散鏡片就更係靚啦!
值唔值~ 一般長焦距marco 鏡向來都係比50mm..60mm..90mm..100mm呢 d 短焦距貴, 比雜廠鏡個價係一開二,值唔值就見仁見智,我只可以答你佢質素一定好過EF100mm f2.8 USM.

[MN56]

It is an excellent macro lens especially the colour which is much better than other competitors and even EF 100 2.8 macro. If you can afford the price, buy it!!

[embu31]

呢支鏡點解咁貴除了佢係L鏡質數，最重要係佢晌最近對焦距離48cm已經可以有1:1既放大率，可以想像下打蝶你可以離開半米已經清楚映到隻蝶個頭有幾難得！不過除了映微距，呢支鏡作為其他用途就不大就手，例如AF速度比一般USM慢，如果用開135L或者小白就會嫌佢太慢了！加上成像太sharp，映人當然要執一執先出到街，否則連毛孔都見到就真係殺風景！

[genewch]

Agree. The 180mm is too specific for macro. It's razor sharp, but it doesn't perform very well for conventional telephoto use. A slow USM is a disaster for "shooting" birds, butterflies, and fast moving objects. To shoot butterflies, I'd rather use my 100mm macro. Perhaps a 200mm or 300mm may help! :P

[genewch]

Canon 180mm is excellent but not friendly to customers in cost. Are the competitors Tamron and Sigma 180mm f3.5 macro good enough?

The 180mm macro seems to have too limited application. Can I use a conventional tele lens like 300mm to substitute this for shooting butterflies and small creatures? If no, what are the differences in effect?

Are macro and tele lens mutually exclusive??