Image & Video Galleries > Lens Gallery
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
kirillica:
--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on July 07, 2011, 11:17:56 AM ---
--- Quote from: kirillica on July 07, 2011, 06:24:34 AM ---What I like the most in 100L is resolution.
--- End quote ---
The 100L's center resolution is very good, but there are some lenses that outresolve the 100L, and many lenses that outresolve the 100L at the edges. At f/5.6-f/8, even the cheap nifty-fifty (50mm f/1.8 II) outresolves the 100L across the whole frame.
But if you mean resolution in actual spatial terms, i.e. the ability to resolve spatial details of real world objects, then yes, the 100L is great for that. Then again, if you like the detail in shots at 1:1 magnification, try going up to 5:1 magnification with the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro (example images here).
--- End quote ---
Yes, I mean resolution of details. I love close-ups taken with 100L. But I don't need macros greater than 1:1, so no need in MP-E lens. I mainly do studio shots and tried different lenses before choosing 100L. At F8+ it gives sharper results than 24-70, 24-105, 70-200F4 (have not tried F2.8 yet) and others. My practice shows that 50 F1.4 is more-less close to that, that's why it's the second lens I normally use there.
And one more thing: graphs are good, but personal impression/knowledge has much bigger value (to me) :)
Mt Spokane Photography:
--- Quote from: kirillica on July 10, 2011, 04:08:45 AM ---Yes, I mean resolution of details. I love close-ups taken with 100L. But I don't need macros greater than 1:1, so no need in MP-E lens. I mainly do studio shots and tried different lenses before choosing 100L. At F8+ it gives sharper results than 24-70, 24-105, 70-200F4 (have not tried F2.8 yet) and others. My practice shows that 50 F1.4 is more-less close to that, that's why it's the second lens I normally use there.
And one more thing: graphs are good, but personal impression/knowledge has much bigger value (to me) :)
--- End quote ---
A macro lens is optimized for close photos, and will outperform most ordinary lenses at MFD.
However, at longer distances, it begins to lose its edge. The older non L 100mm macro was slightly sharper, but it did not have the wonderful IS, and I found it difficult to use in the field when compared to the "L".
That wonderful IS compensated for my admittedly sloppy practices, which makes it appear to be sharper, when, in fact, it is not.
For studio photography on a tripod, IS isn't needed, so you could gain sharpness and save money with the 100mm f/2.8 macro usm.
100mmL handheld:
24-105mm L Handheld and cropped
kirillica:
Mt Spokane Photography,
I was trying ordinary 100mm to and found 100L a bit sharper + I don't use tripod (I like moving :) ) + "L" letter is not for beauty reasons as all we know, so I can get 1:1 crops like this:
+ I have 50F1.4 in other cases I don't need 100L
Mt Spokane Photography:
--- Quote from: kirillica on July 10, 2011, 12:35:09 PM ---Mt Spokane Photography,
I was trying ordinary 100mm to and found 100L a bit sharper + I don't use tripod (I like moving :) ) + "L" letter is not for beauty reasons as all we know, so I can get 1:1 crops like this:
+ I have 50F1.4 in other cases I don't need 100L
--- End quote ---
The same issue I had. Up until the 100mm L, handheld closeup shots were doomed to a lesser quality, they might be good, but they did not show what the lens was capable of doing. The only proper way to get the best of the 100mm USM was with a tripod.
Comparing a handheld shot with the Non-IS and with the IS will show what the IS can do to overcome movement.
Mt Spokane Photography:
Still playing with my new 7D / 100mm L combo this morning. I like this combination, I can get good handheld snapshots. Not like using a tripod, but OK for 30 second wonders.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version