Comments on: EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro Discontinued?

By: JW

JW — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:55:55 +0000

The non-L 100mm macro has disappeared from Canon’s site. That could be evidence that it’s been discontinued..??

By: Dirk Snowglobe

Dirk Snowglobe — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:23:32 +0000

BTW, one thing I’ve discovered about the 100/2.8 Macro is that is breathes a ton. (Breathing is a zoom-like effect when changing focus.) It’s no big deal for photos, but is a bad trait in a video lens.

By: exit_level

exit_level — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:46:17 +0000

Yeah, the devil’s in the detail. They should pay more attention to the stray light. Maybe in future they add more powerful in-lens processor, what would allow to avoid IS movable lens (like mirrors in DSLRs). Also software correction of common optical flaws could be done in-lens and not in RAW converters. That new generation lenses could be even cheaper than traditional ones, knowing how precise is manufacturing of some lenses.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:15:00 +0000

I have to side with Dave. I’ve owned THREE versions of this lens within the past 18 months; even had them all at the same time, all the USM focus type. I kept the best one of the bunch after some comparison shots and still make good use of it for a variety of subjects.
It’s very good to excellent except for contrast.

What I’ve found with all of them is that the overall image contrast and colors are not nearly as good as I would have expected. There are some internal baffle elements to reduce stray light problems, but there are also a still a lot of highly reflective (some are metallic) surfaces inside this lens which continue to reflect stray light in an uncontrolled manner. I’ve also seen inconsistent lens coatings or cementing of elements causing visible flaws and a “speckled” appearance when looking thru the lens at a bright light source. These optical problems all contribute to reducing the absolute IQ it COULD have achieved.

The new L version seems to really kick the old lens’ into the weeds at larger apertures for contrast but it also has a tad more distortion and CA.

I’m keeping my old lens for now, the L would be a complement to it rather than a replacement, if I could afford both.

By: Paul Smith Shoes

Paul Smith Shoes — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:02:30 +0000

Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.

By: Dirk Snowglobe

Dirk Snowglobe — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:40:00 +0000

A couple weeks ago I attended a Canon event in Portland, OR that was sponsored by Pro Photo Supply. The next day I called Pro Photo Supply asking about their Canon Days sale on the weekend. I asked about the price on an EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro and was told that it was being discontinued. I about choked, and asked to reconfirm. The salesperson acted 100% sure and did not give me a price. (I guess they had none in stock and did not expect to receive any more.) I can only assume that they got this information from the Canon rep that hosted the event and would be at the shop during the weekend.

Last week I picked up a used one in perfect condition through craigslist for $400.

Regarding a post above that is critical of the lens, I don’t care if it’s a bit soft at infinity. I’ve got the 85/1.8 for longer focus distances. As a macro, the 100 f/2.8 is tuned for the minimum focus distance, as it should be.

Another shortcoming, at least for video, is that the lens breathes strongly when changing focus, so it’s not great for extreme rack focus effects. I don’t know that the new IS L version is any better.

By: dude

dude — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:43:36 +0000

Why would I want to pay 100% more when I could get similar features if Canon did what Sony and Pentax are doing in their bodies? I want a manufacturer like Canon or Nikon, with a broad lens family, to have internal IS. Non-IS lenses are lighter and cheaper. I do like IS in my lenses, especially the zoom lenses, but I’d like the option to buy cheaper non-IS lenses if I am willing to lose IS in the viewfinder.

I think people fall on either side of this issue based on economics. Those of us who don’t make a living with our cameras are drawn to the economy of IS in the body. (Also, replace the body and all your lenses get the latest IS technology.)

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:14:04 +0000

Then you could buy 100m 2.8 L IS if that suit your need. If you want in body IS and awesome lens for portrait, go for sony & Zeiss.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:01:37 +0000

(1) did. I find it hard to believe I have a bad copy of the lens

I have benchmarked my 100mm against the new L version

Both are identical in IQ and sharpness

I have also benchmarked my 100mm against my 50 f/1.8 II

The 50 f/1.8 II destroys it for sharpness and IQ at comparable apertures (but not bokeh)

The 85 f/1.2 II annihilates it

By: dude

dude — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:07:59 +0000

And just imagine how much more you would love it if the Canon body had in camera IS? There are several prime lenses that would be a ‘deal’ if the body stabilized. Why doesn’t Canon see that this would give them a distinct advantage over Nikon? Is it just a stubborn mindset that says we don’t this around here? Perhaps I am missing something, but I’d really like for my 100mm f2.8 to be handheld for portrait shots.

By: vettesight

vettesight — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:45:20 +0000

I have been using my 100 f 2.8 macro for several years and love it. I find the build quality to be excellent and the IQ to also be first rate. Only thing I was disappointed with was the need to buy the lens hood separately.

By: Michal

Michal — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:22:03 +0000

“If it’s such a great lens why the backlash to my comments.
People only get defensive when someone hits a nerve”

Once again you are confusing facts with your baseless opinion.

You are not objective at all, you have stated your personal views without backing them up in any way, please do show us some evidence of your claims.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:38:56 +0000

I talked with the canon canada rep 2 weeks ago and he told me the EF 100mm macro will stay along with the 100mm L

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:14:41 +0000

“If it’s such a great lens why the backlash to my comments.

People only get defensive when someone hits a nerve”

How true. Which one of 1, 2a, 2b, or 3 hit your nerve?