November 24, 2014, 03:21:19 PM

Author Topic: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?  (Read 6697 times)

pharp

  • Guest
Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2013, 03:33:20 PM »
What I would prefer to IS for macro work would be pushbutton fine focus. If I miss, it's usually focus. I typically use manual focus and rock back and forth to nail it, but it would be GREAT to be able to brace and fine focus with pushbuttons. Just my opinion.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2013, 03:33:20 PM »

greger

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • 7D
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2013, 03:27:14 AM »
Malte_P maybe you should buy a ring light flash now and the 100mm IS Macro in the future. Try a search for Amaran
Halo LED ring light. I am going to do more research and maybe buy this flash at the end of summer. I thought your macros of bees to be quite good and hope I can do as well when I go into the garden to take pics of bees. I have used my 580 EX ll flash and it has helped a lot but I got a reflection that I didn't like on a Ladybug's back. I should have used the healing brush in PS to get rid of it before I printed.
Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

bardamu

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2013, 03:55:45 AM »
I've currently got the 100mm non-L and I've shot literally tens of thousand of pics with it.  When I researched the initial purchase of my gear I read that there was no difference in sharpness between the two and the IS wasn't really beneficial for 99% of my shooting, so I saved some money and went with the non-L, probably an ok decision at the time.

But now that I've shot a lot, advanced my gear collection a lot and read up more on L vs non-L I've decided that I will upgrade.  Apart from IS there are a few other differences.  The L is a tad sharper actually (see Photozone for example).  The weather sealing is welcome, plus there is a focus-limiter switch and the L bokeh is better as well.  Not sure how the Tamron compares, but the 100L seems good in many different areas.

I'd like to know if there is an AF advantage to using the L but I suspect that the body is a more important factor.

Interestingly I had the internal motor of my 100mm lens conk out one time, the rig just siezed up and said I needed to clean the contacts, but actually it was a motor problem.  Cost me AU$260 to fix, but considering how much I've used the lens I wasn't really annoyed.  But it has made me rather paranoid, so on serious macro holidays in future I will be taking along two lenses (100L/non-L and EF-S 60).

koolman

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
    • Pictures Of Jerusalem
Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2013, 06:01:05 AM »
I have all kinds of lenses. The ONLY lens I have that is simply superb in every way is the 100 L IS. Its AF is super fast, color rendering excellent, lightweight, and overall a pleasure to use. It is can perform many duties in addition to macro, portrait, artistic, etc.

I shoot a canon crop 550d.

Jerusalem Photographer (canon t2i, 50 1.4, Tamron 17-50 non VC, canon 60mm, canon 35mm L,Samyang 14mm MF,Voigtlander 20mm MF)

eeek

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2013, 07:23:00 AM »
The only problem I have with the 100 2,8L IS macro is it didn't come with the tripod collar.  When I got this lens, it was for a lot of 1/200, f/14, iso 100 1:1 close up macro work.  However, now I've stepped back a bit and started trying to get backgrounds in my macro shots.  The IS helps tremendously for that.  I love everything about this lens.  I had reservations about getting since I already owned the non IS version, but I am glad I went with it.  One thing to mention is I can AF at close to 1:1 where you can't do that with the non IS.  I'd prefer to be manual and rock back and forth but sometimes with some small insects, the AF just works better.

Malte_P

  • Guest
Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2013, 12:00:49 PM »
[ooops
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 09:38:07 PM by Malte_P »

greger

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • 7D
    • View Profile
Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2013, 04:14:22 PM »
Congratulations on purchasing the 100 IS macro lens. Look forward to seeing your pics with this lens. I did some research on the Amaran Halo and will stick with using my 580 EX ll and my Gary Fong collapsable diffuser.
Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2013, 04:14:22 PM »