August 21, 2014, 06:16:48 PM

Author Topic: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro  (Read 26912 times)

matt2491

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2012, 11:11:26 AM »
I LOVE my 100L! Super sharp, super fast AF, and super creamy images!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2012, 11:11:26 AM »

Pieces Of E

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Canon owners and operators
    • View Profile
    • Pieces Of E, LLC
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2012, 11:36:05 AM »
Um, yes this is a great lens. Been out a couple years now. Why a review now? And if it has Hybrid IS, why doesn't Canon use Hybrid IS on all their IS lenses?
EOS 7D, BG-E7, EF 300L IS f4, EF 100L IS f2.8 macro, EF 24-105L IS f4 , EF 1.4 extender MKIII, EF-S 10-22 f3.5-5.6, 70-200L IS f2.8 II, EOS-M, 22 f2 STM, EF-S 18-135 IS STM, EF 85 f1.8

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2012, 11:38:46 AM »
Um, yes this is a great lens. Been out a couple years now. Why a review now? And if it has Hybrid IS, why doesn't Canon use Hybrid IS on all their IS lenses?

Why not review now? Lenses last years or decades in the marketplace.

As for hybrid IS, Its really only useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances. Perfect for macro lenses.

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1555
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2012, 11:40:24 AM »
Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)

I own both as well.  I would guess that the 135L is slightly sharper, but both produce stunning images with great bokeh.  I use them for different things, with some overlap, and would be very hard pressed to part with either of them.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

Pieces Of E

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Canon owners and operators
    • View Profile
    • Pieces Of E, LLC
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2012, 11:44:04 AM »
As for hybrid IS, Its really only useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances. Perfect for macro lenses


Thank you for educating me on that feature.
EOS 7D, BG-E7, EF 300L IS f4, EF 100L IS f2.8 macro, EF 24-105L IS f4 , EF 1.4 extender MKIII, EF-S 10-22 f3.5-5.6, 70-200L IS f2.8 II, EOS-M, 22 f2 STM, EF-S 18-135 IS STM, EF 85 f1.8

PavelR

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2012, 11:44:28 AM »
Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)

I have them both and love them both, but I don't think I've ever made a direct comparison (I probably have a slight bias in favor of the 135 but I'm not sure I have anything to back it up).  In what way(s) do you think the 135 is the "clear winner"?
I used it several times in portrait shooting occasions and the images are visibly softer comparing it with the result from 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 (all at F 2.8 [I usually use F 2.0-2.8]), thus I asked the question, whether my copy of 100L is not under the average... (Other than portrait images with focus distance about 15-20 meters are quite OK.) (+ in direct comparison with Nikon 105 VR images taken with my 100L looks pretty softer too - especially till F4 of contrasty jewelry with small details...)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2012, 11:48:56 AM »
I had borrowed the L and the non L version of the lens and went walkabout to try them out. With the non L version I was trying to take butterfly pictures in flight..... with the L version I did.... and holy C**P!!! were they sharp!!!!!!
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2012, 11:48:56 AM »

alejandrormz

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2012, 02:15:47 PM »
How does the upcoming Tamron 90mm f/2.8 VC lens compare to this one?

Any thoughts?

gilmorephoto

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
    • Gilmore Photography
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2012, 04:52:37 PM »
LOVE THE 100mm L!

Crazy sharp.  Perfect for both portrait and macro. +1.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 05:30:16 PM by gilmorephoto »
5D3 | 24-70mm EF f2.8L II | 40mm EF f/2.8 | 100mm EF f/2.8L | 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT

Ew

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2012, 05:40:05 PM »
Putting IS aside, ive been happy with the 100/2 - but have always had the "wondering" nag.

Anyone own(ed) both and could shed some light on this?? T.I.A.
5D3 | 600D | EOSm | Samyang 8mm 3.8T | Samyang 14 2.8 | 17-40 | 28 1.8 | Sig 35 1.4 | 40 | 50 1.4 | 100 2.0 | 135 L | 70-200 4L IS + x1.4mk2 | Nippon Kogaku 50 1.4 (1965) | Nikkor 43-86 (mid 1970s) | M: 22

brad-man

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 692
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2012, 05:51:16 PM »
Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)

I have them both and love them both, but I don't think I've ever made a direct comparison (I probably have a slight bias in favor of the 135 but I'm not sure I have anything to back it up).  In what way(s) do you think the 135 is the "clear winner"?
I used it several times in portrait shooting occasions and the images are visibly softer comparing it with the result from 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 (all at F 2.8 [I usually use F 2.0-2.8]), thus I asked the question, whether my copy of 100L is not under the average... (Other than portrait images with focus distance about 15-20 meters are quite OK.) (+ in direct comparison with Nikon 105 VR images taken with my 100L looks pretty softer too - especially till F4 of contrasty jewelry with small details...)

I did a great deal of research before picking up this lens a year ago, and yours is the first comment I have ever seen that included the word soft. This lens is wicked sharp whether used for macro or telephoto. If you have already micro-adjusted it to your camera, then you should certainly send it back to Canon to be calibrated as you are missing out on a wonderful piece of glass...

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2012, 06:25:37 PM »
I'm with brad-man, "soft" would be the absolute last word I use to describe the 100 f/2.8 L ... bitingly sharp is more like it.  you should definitely get that checked out by Canon.

Biggles

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2012, 07:46:28 PM »
I am slowly saving up for this lens after trying a friend's copy for a month - I was amazed at how rich the colours were compared to my 60mm macro. Plus the IS is invaluable since I like handheld macro. 

One alternative however, would be to put the money towards a 70-200mm IS, probably the f4, to gain the upgraded benefit of that lens for telephoto, plus buy a 500D close-up filter to turn it into a macro. I have seen some stunning photos taken with that setup, since that lens is very very good too. Does anybody have experience with that setup to comment on how it would compare overall with the 100L for macro? I would guess it is less flexible somehow, but I don't know in what way.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2012, 07:46:28 PM »

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 856
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2012, 08:26:30 PM »
Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)

I have them both and love them both, but I don't think I've ever made a direct comparison (I probably have a slight bias in favor of the 135 but I'm not sure I have anything to back it up).  In what way(s) do you think the 135 is the "clear winner"?
I used it several times in portrait shooting occasions and the images are visibly softer comparing it with the result from 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 (all at F 2.8 [I usually use F 2.0-2.8]), thus I asked the question, whether my copy of 100L is not under the average... (Other than portrait images with focus distance about 15-20 meters are quite OK.) (+ in direct comparison with Nikon 105 VR images taken with my 100L looks pretty softer too - especially till F4 of contrasty jewelry with small details...)

I did a great deal of research before picking up this lens a year ago, and yours is the first comment I have ever seen that included the word soft. This lens is wicked sharp whether used for macro or telephoto. If you have already micro-adjusted it to your camera, then you should certainly send it back to Canon to be calibrated as you are missing out on a wonderful piece of glass...


Perhaps you got a bad copy...Mine is sharp  as a tack.
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

PavelR

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2012, 09:29:45 PM »
Thank you, brad-man and infared, for the information.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2012, 09:29:45 PM »