Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

[matt2491]

I LOVE my 100L! Super sharp, super fast AF, and super creamy images!

[Pieces Of E]

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?

[RLPhoto]

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]

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.

[Pieces Of E]

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.

[PavelR]

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]

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!!!!!!

[alejandrormz]

How does the upcoming Tamron 90mm f/2.8 VC lens compare to this one?

Any thoughts?

[gilmorephoto]

LOVE THE 100mm L!

Crazy sharp.  Perfect for both portrait and macro. +1.

[Ew]

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.

[brad-man]

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]

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]

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.

[infared]

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.

[PavelR]

Thank you, brad-man and infared, for the information.