I was hoping not
I received word from a few folks that the EF 100 f/2.8 Macro has been discontinued. The lens currently still appears in Canon Canada’s price lists as well as Canon USA’s. The manufacturing of the lens may have stopped.
I hope this lens isn’t gone, there’s a big difference between $650CAD and $1300CAD for a 100mm Macro. I own the aformentioned lens, and I have no plans to upgrade.
I’ll look for something definitive.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
This confirms what I have predicted months ago. The “golden” lenses will finish soon and we’ll only have the option of L for pros and EF-S for consumers.
I do wonder if they sell many 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 macro etc
Canon thoughts must be, if you’re on a FF you should be buying L :-/
Wow…Glad I didn’t decide to sell mine when I parted out some of my other macro gear…Hope to get some confirmation on this CR guy!
“This confirms what I have predicted months ago”
Most unlikely, there are a lot of non-L EF lenses that do not have an “L” equivalent and there is absolutely no reason for Canon to discontinue those lenses from marketing and economical point of view.
I’m also highly sceptical about this rumour, Canon has a history of selling both IS and non-IS versions of the same lenses, see no reason why they would discontinue non-IS 100mm macro.
“I received word from a few folks that the EF 100 f/2.8 Macro has been discontinued”
And those folks are so trustworthy and such great insiders that this rumour has a zero ratin…
they must sell tons of those, and 100/2 as well–I’d bet they sell more than their L equivalents. Thrifty shooters know they’re gems, if used properly.
good riddance, most overrated lens ever!
I sold mine long ago, however, I would not think it would be discontinued. Canon still needs to compete with the 3rd party lens makers, and this lens has been very tough for the third party lens makers to beat.
I like my 100 2.8 nice and sharp.
LT
here is my 7d video with EF 100 2.8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RG9UXl2rI4
“good riddance, most overrated lens ever!”
Please do not confuse your personal opinion with facts and general consensus. Would you care to point us to some respectable reviews that are in agreement with you?
You said: “I own the aformentioned lens, and I have no plans to upgrade.”
Maybe that’s exactly why Canon doesn’t want the two together; there would be little reason to buy the new one if the other one is 90% the lens at a much lower price. I hope I’m wrong.
Now if they will only replace the 50mm 1.4 with an autofocus that doesn’t break.
cheers,
Chris
“Maybe that’s exactly why Canon doesn’t want the two together; there would be little reason to buy the new one if the other one is 90% the lens at a much lower price.”
1) There is no official confirmation that the lens is in fact discontinued.
2) Who says that Canon makes more money on the new lens than on the old one, just because the new lens is more expensive it does not mean that the profit margin is larger as well.
Yes please, to a “50mm / f1.4” replacement with a ring type USM (the old designed lens AF motor breaks so easily, I still don’t know how it happens. NB: all the other canon lens ring type USM’s are reliable).
Also a 400mm / f5.6 with IS would be great – its the only long lens that doesn’t have IS.
I have the lens and I believe it is overrated…hence my message
Since when has writing our opinion been inappropriate? Isn’t that the point of “comments”?
You’re asking for the impossible – why would any “respectable” review comment on subjective things like whether a lens is underrated or overrated?
The lens has not been discontinued. All you need to do is call Canon to confirm this.
Dave, your comment has 0% information in it. Is this the point with comments in general? What is the use with such attitude except wasting of time? Sometimes you are bright like f/1.2, sometimes you speak like the notorious John *an.
There are a few possibilities here. This incatnation of Dave either:
1) Owns an absolutely terrible example of this lens;
2a) Is a liar;
2b) Is a troll; or
3) Is an idiot.
I wonder which is more likely?
A good news, imho. Canon has a some dublettes with/without IS: 4/70-200, 2.8/70-200 and 2.8/100 Macro. The uplift for IS is a fortune. Let them discontinue the non-IS and bring down the IS prices to a realistic level.
Telmo could be right. On the one hand, Canon has a large range of lenses. On the other hand, many of them do not meet the optical quality of upto-date cams such as 7D, 5D, 1D or 1Ds.
3?
There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and stating a fact. The fact in this case if that the lens in question is one of the highest regarded Canon lens, as The Digital Picture has it “most fun for dollar” and it’s hard to find a negative review of it.
In that view your opinion seems oddly out of place so you should take care to both – make sure that it’s only your opinion and somehow substantiate it.
If it’s such a great lens why the backlash to my comments.
People only get defensive when someone hits a nerve
If someone was to say the 300 f/2.8L IS is an overrated lens, nobody would get worked up about it because they know the person is clearly talking crap
But when you talk about the 100 Macro…the doubt creeps in, hence you get the defenders coming up
Let’s be more objective though:
– The bokeh is terrible (Aperture diaphragm is not round even at f/2.8 when near MFD)
– Build is cheap
– Colours a bit dull and lifeless
– Low Saturation
– Sharp near MFD but softer towards infinity
It’s not a terrible lens, I just said it was overrated.
“If it’s such a great lens why the backlash to my comments.
People only get defensive when someone hits a nerve”
How true. Which one of 1, 2a, 2b, or 3 hit your nerve?
I talked with the canon canada rep 2 weeks ago and he told me the EF 100mm macro will stay along with the 100mm L
“If it’s such a great lens why the backlash to my comments.
People only get defensive when someone hits a nerve”
Once again you are confusing facts with your baseless opinion.
You are not objective at all, you have stated your personal views without backing them up in any way, please do show us some evidence of your claims.
I have been using my 100 f 2.8 macro for several years and love it. I find the build quality to be excellent and the IQ to also be first rate. Only thing I was disappointed with was the need to buy the lens hood separately.
And just imagine how much more you would love it if the Canon body had in camera IS? There are several prime lenses that would be a ‘deal’ if the body stabilized. Why doesn’t Canon see that this would give them a distinct advantage over Nikon? Is it just a stubborn mindset that says we don’t this around here? Perhaps I am missing something, but I’d really like for my 100mm f2.8 to be handheld for portrait shots.
(1) did. I find it hard to believe I have a bad copy of the lens
I have benchmarked my 100mm against the new L version
Both are identical in IQ and sharpness
I have also benchmarked my 100mm against my 50 f/1.8 II
The 50 f/1.8 II destroys it for sharpness and IQ at comparable apertures (but not bokeh)
The 85 f/1.2 II annihilates it
Then you could buy 100m 2.8 L IS if that suit your need. If you want in body IS and awesome lens for portrait, go for sony & Zeiss.
Why would I want to pay 100% more when I could get similar features if Canon did what Sony and Pentax are doing in their bodies? I want a manufacturer like Canon or Nikon, with a broad lens family, to have internal IS. Non-IS lenses are lighter and cheaper. I do like IS in my lenses, especially the zoom lenses, but I’d like the option to buy cheaper non-IS lenses if I am willing to lose IS in the viewfinder.
I think people fall on either side of this issue based on economics. Those of us who don’t make a living with our cameras are drawn to the economy of IS in the body. (Also, replace the body and all your lenses get the latest IS technology.)
A couple weeks ago I attended a Canon event in Portland, OR that was sponsored by Pro Photo Supply. The next day I called Pro Photo Supply asking about their Canon Days sale on the weekend. I asked about the price on an EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro and was told that it was being discontinued. I about choked, and asked to reconfirm. The salesperson acted 100% sure and did not give me a price. (I guess they had none in stock and did not expect to receive any more.) I can only assume that they got this information from the Canon rep that hosted the event and would be at the shop during the weekend.
Last week I picked up a used one in perfect condition through craigslist for $400.
Regarding a post above that is critical of the lens, I don’t care if it’s a bit soft at infinity. I’ve got the 85/1.8 for longer focus distances. As a macro, the 100 f/2.8 is tuned for the minimum focus distance, as it should be.
Another shortcoming, at least for video, is that the lens breathes strongly when changing focus, so it’s not great for extreme rack focus effects. I don’t know that the new IS L version is any better.
Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.
I have to side with Dave. I’ve owned THREE versions of this lens within the past 18 months; even had them all at the same time, all the USM focus type. I kept the best one of the bunch after some comparison shots and still make good use of it for a variety of subjects.
It’s very good to excellent except for contrast.
What I’ve found with all of them is that the overall image contrast and colors are not nearly as good as I would have expected. There are some internal baffle elements to reduce stray light problems, but there are also a still a lot of highly reflective (some are metallic) surfaces inside this lens which continue to reflect stray light in an uncontrolled manner. I’ve also seen inconsistent lens coatings or cementing of elements causing visible flaws and a “speckled” appearance when looking thru the lens at a bright light source. These optical problems all contribute to reducing the absolute IQ it COULD have achieved.
The new L version seems to really kick the old lens’ into the weeds at larger apertures for contrast but it also has a tad more distortion and CA.
I’m keeping my old lens for now, the L would be a complement to it rather than a replacement, if I could afford both.
Yeah, the devil’s in the detail. They should pay more attention to the stray light. Maybe in future they add more powerful in-lens processor, what would allow to avoid IS movable lens (like mirrors in DSLRs). Also software correction of common optical flaws could be done in-lens and not in RAW converters. That new generation lenses could be even cheaper than traditional ones, knowing how precise is manufacturing of some lenses.
BTW, one thing I’ve discovered about the 100/2.8 Macro is that is breathes a ton. (Breathing is a zoom-like effect when changing focus.) It’s no big deal for photos, but is a bad trait in a video lens.
The non-L 100mm macro has disappeared from Canon’s site. That could be evidence that it’s been discontinued..??