100mm macro L on a 7d

[skitron]

I have the 100L and its a very nice lens, but remember on a 7D it shoots like a 160 on a FF. I bought it because its a very good macro that can double as a short tele and works reasonably well in marginal light with the IS. But I also have a decent 50 and 35 to go with it. No way I'd want the 100L as my primary lens, especially on a crop body.

I also wouldn't get married to the idea of "L" only, you'll miss out on some great glass going that route...especially if you're budget constrained. And if you aren't budget constrained, Zeiss has some pretty nifty stuff you'd be passing up.

[sdsr]

The first thing I would do if contemplating the 100L as my only lens would be to set my zoom lens at 100mm, spend a week or two taking photos at no other focal length and see how often I wished I had another choice.  You may find it more limiting than you expect (or you may not; we're all different). 

Much as I like my 100L, I think that if I were in your situation I would take another route: keep the 50 f/1.8 and get the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 plus a wide angle - Samyang 14 f/2.8, perhaps, or Canon 28 f/1.8.  Or I might risk the extra noise in low light and buy a used 70-200 f/4 IS.  (I would also point out that although the 100L is 2.8, and can be used to good effect in low light, like all (?) macro lenses it focuses rather slowly in very low light - not as well as the 85 1.8 or 100 2.) 

   

[Axilrod]

I agree with SDSR, try shooting with your 18-135@100mm for a while and see how you feel.  Personally I think the 100mm will be too long on the 7D (160mm full frame equivalent), and honestly even on full frame I think the 100mm could feel limiting if it were your only lens.  I can't say it's a good choice, especially considering the versatility of the lenses you would be giving up for it.

I think you need to have some kind of general purpose zoom, or if you're set on getting a prime I would try something a bit shorter (50mm at the most).  Check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and if you shopped used you could probably get that, a 50mm f/1.4, and an 85mm f/1.8 for the price of the 100L (and you could do WAY more with that setup.  Either that or a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which is my favorite general purpose lens for an APS-C body.  Or if you're on a budget I've heard good things about the 15-85mm.

So for a zoom, 17-55 f/2.8 IS

Primes:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
and either:
a) Sigma 50mm f/1.4

b) Canon 50mm f/1.4 + Canon 85mm f/1.8 (both can be found used for around $300)

Just a thought.  The Canon 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are excellent lenses, especially the 85mm and both would be great for portraits.  Add the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and you have a great walkaround prime.  They would definitely keep you busy for a while and you would see a huge improvement in the quality of your images over your current setup.  It would also help out with the low-light stuff you mentioned.

Whatever you do I would not get the 100L now if it's going to be your only lens.  I think you're too focused on the versatility of the lens and the fact that it's an L lens, but looking at the big picture it's just not the right choice.  Macro is fun, but it can get old pretty quickly and on an APS-C body 100mm is just too long to be your only lens.  I'm pretty confident you would be happy with any combination of the lenses I mentioned.  Even a $300-$400 prime is going to have comparable image quality (and in some cases better) than almost any L zoom.  And I remember being set on L lenses and I could have saved myself a whole lot of trouble if I had checked out Zeiss lenses before I spent a year buying, trading, and re-selling almost every Canon prime under 200mm. 

[azezal]

Thank you everyone for your time
I feel enlightened,thank god I consulted you guys,this is gonna be a long post so first up

It absolutely kills me to sell any of my gear I have some sort of emotional connection with them specialy the 50 mm

I know that just the 100mil can (and is ) limiting but I have almost unrestricted access to my cousin's 24mm for atleast next 3 years

Though I have nothing my 7d has mounted several fantastic lenses including the 200 f2,of all lenses I liked the 100mm the mistake have constantly been using my friend's 100 L(i can probably compose with my eyes closed)

The17-40 caught my eye

I'm currently leaning towards a 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup with the 24 as my occasional wideangle backup

Renting is practically non existent in my country and 2nd hand lenses the same

3rd party lenses too are hard to come by

I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range

Thanks in advance

[neuroanatomist]

If you think that was a long post, read some of jrista's...   

[azezal]

Still new here will keep an eye out for that

[roadrunner]

I know you seem to have already made up your mind, but I feel I must chime in on the 100L.

It's an amazing lens, but you mention you will be doing primarily portraits with macro as a bonus. I used the 100L on the 7D for about 2 years, and while it was a fine lens, it was very often too tight for portraits, and I was very limited in how I could photograph my portraits. Sometimes I just couldn't get that far away from the people.

When I upgraded to the 5DIII, I fell in love with the lens as a portrait lens. It's absolutely amazing.

Finally, as someone else said, I would never, ever sell your 50 1.8. It's such a cheap lens, and it provides you with a low light option when needed. There will inevitably be times you need something wider than 100mm, need more bokeh, or just want something small and light, and I would highly recommend you keep your 50mm. Just my opinion.

[azezal]

I know you seem to have already made up your mind, but I feel I must chime in on the 100L.

It's an amazing lens, but you mention you will be doing primarily portraits with macro as a bonus. I used the 100L on the 7D for about 2 years, and while it was a fine lens, it was very often too tight for portraits, and I was very limited in how I could photograph my portraits. Sometimes I just couldn't get that far away from the people.

When I upgraded to the 5DIII, I fell in love with the lens as a portrait lens. It's absolutely amazing.

Finally, as someone else said, I would never, ever sell your 50 1.8. It's such a cheap lens, and it provides you with a low light option when needed. There will inevitably be times you need something wider than 100mm, need more bokeh, or just want something small and light, and I would highly recommend you keep your 50mm. Just my opinion

I'm currently leaning towardss the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 combo unsure now that I see rumors about the 50

[murray09]

I used to own the 100mm macro L and used it on the 7d. Works really well. Sharp, quick focusing and all the benefits of a crop body. Go for it.

[Marsu42]

I used to own the 100mm macro L and used it on the 7d. Works really well. Sharp, quick focusing and all the benefits of a crop body. Go for it.

... I agree, except for "quick focusing" - the 100L, being designed as a macro and dual-use portrait lens has a rather slow af. Fortunately it has a zoom range limiter, so you can either pre-select "macro only" or (one of the main advantages over the 100mm non-L macro) "non-macro only".

[sdsr]

I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range

As you already have 50 f1.8, given your preferences I see no point in upgrading to the 50 f1.4 - the latter may be more robust, but I doubt you'll notice much difference, if any, in the photos you take.  If you're mostly shooting 100-250 AND want/need a fast lens, you may want to get a 135 L instead of 50 f1.4 + 100 f2 (it costs about the same as the 100L); it's a stunningly good lens.  Or consider a non-IS 70-200 f2.8 or, if you want/need IS and are willing to compromise on speed, the 70-200 f4 IS.

[azezal]

I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range

As you already have 50 f1.8, given your pcountryrences I see no point in upgrading to the 50 f1.4 - the latter may be more robust, but I doubt you'll notice much difference, if any, in the photos you take.  If you're mostly shooting 100-250 AND want/need a fast lens, you may want to get a 135 L instead of 50 f1.4 + 100 f2 (it costs about the same as the 100L); it's a stunningly good lens.  Or consider a non-IS 70-200 f2.8 or, if you want/need IS and are willing to compromise on speed, the 70-200 f4 IS.

Not here not my country,its more expensive and too long to be the only lens on a 7d had a samyang been available here I would have gone for the 35 without a 2nd thought
 
So you say the transition from 1.8-1.4 isn't worth it in my condition and I should stick to the 1.8

Now I'm really confused

[verysimplejason]

I don't think you get it
selling gear is the only way for me to own L glass
Or I could sell 7d and downgrade to a rebel with 2 lenses

Personally I wouldn't hesitate lasting a decade with a 5d3 and a 50 1.2 but $$$$$ don't grow on trees specially for someone like me

For the price of 100L macro, you may want to get the 100mm macro USM non-L (same IQ, just no IS) + a 40mm F2.8 + flash.  Sometimes, getting the best doesn't equate in getting the best pictures.

[sdsr]

I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range

As you already have 50 f1.8, given your pcountryrences I see no point in upgrading to the 50 f1.4 - the latter may be more robust, but I doubt you'll notice much difference, if any, in the photos you take.  If you're mostly shooting 100-250 AND want/need a fast lens, you may want to get a 135 L instead of 50 f1.4 + 100 f2 (it costs about the same as the 100L); it's a stunningly good lens.  Or consider a non-IS 70-200 f2.8 or, if you want/need IS and are willing to compromise on speed, the 70-200 f4 IS.

Not here not my country,its more expensive and too long to be the only lens on a 7d had a samyang been available here I would have gone for the 35 without a 2nd thought
 
So you say the transition from 1.8-1.4 isn't worth it in my condition and I should stick to the 1.8

Now I'm really confused

I think you may have misread what I wrote - I was suggesting the 135L as a substitute for the 100L, not the more expensive 35L, which I think would be a huge waste of money since you have the 50 f1.8 and ready access to a 24.  As for 50 1.4 vs 1.8, well, perhaps it's just me, but for the sorts of uses to which I put a fast 50mm lens, I see very little, if any, difference in the photos they take. 

[azezal]

I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range

As you already have 50 fcontributeiven your pcountryrences I see no point in upgrading to the 50 f1.4 - the latter may be more robust, but I doubt you'll notice much difference, if any, in the photos you take.  If you're mostly shooting 100-250 AND want/need a fast lens, you may want to get a 135 L instead of 50 f1.4 + 100 f2 (it costs about the same as the 100L); it's a stunningly good lens.  Or consider a non-IS 70-200 f2.8 or, if you want/need IS and are willing to compromise on speed, the 70-200 f4 IS.

Not here not my country,its more expensive and too long to be the only lens on a 7d had a samyang been available here I would have gone for the 35 without a 2nd thought
 
So you say the transition from 1.8-1.4 isn't worth it in my condition and I should stick to the 1.8

Now I'm really confused

I think you may have misread what I wrote - I was suggesting the 135L as a substitute for the 100L, not the more expensive 35L, which I think would be a huge waste of money since you have the 50 f1.8 and reaI y access to a 24.  As for 50 1.4 vs 1.8, well, perhaps it's just me, but for the sorts of uses to which I put a fast 50mm lens, I see very little, if any, difference in the photos they take. 

No i get it 135 is one of my favorites but its $1250 here vs $990 for the macro

I think ill stick to the 1.8( love it)maybe I will wait a year keep contributing to the 5d fund
Buy it in 3 years( very very very very very unlikely)