Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range

[FlowerPhotog]

I have done a series of comparison shots at mid-distances, a wooden picket fence with lots of grain detail, and distant shots at a nearby mountain park. I have done this for all my lenses, on a tripod, self timer, etc so taking my shaky hands out of the equation. I shoot each lens at a range of apertures, using both viewfinder AF, and Live View AF. On those tests I can't see any difference to speak of between the two 100 mm lenses, both are very sharp across the entire frame. It did seem that on my t2i the 100 2.0 would once in a while be just a smidgen front- focusing as I sometimes would get a little sharper on large aperture shots using Live View focusing. When I got my 5d Mk III, I bought a Lens-Align unit at the same time and tested all of my lenses. Both 100 mm lenses were spot on. The 24-105 kit lens that came with the 5D Mk 3, however was off at the long end. Even with AFMA applied to that lens, at 100 it has nowhere near the IQ as the two 100 primes. The 100 2.0 is faster to focus than the 100 2.8L macro, probably due to the lesser total focus range. It is also very quiet focusing. I think you may have hit on a possible explanation for your initial impression of the lens' sharpness - using a pretty high shutter speed (1/250 or more) is what I found I needed to be sure to 'take the shake out' using handheld, which is more than the rule of thumb would say you needed for this lens; ie 1/160th on a crop sensor camera. The shot I attached earlier was 1/1000 second.

 

[Act444]

Interesting. Good to know!

It did seem that on my t2i the 100 2.0 would once in a while be just a smidgen front- focusing as I sometimes would get a little sharper on large aperture shots using Live View focusing.

I used to have a T2i before I "upgraded" to the 60D which I now love. I think that camera had a serious front-focusing problem- it seemed any fast lens I used/tried with it seemed to be off a bit- very inconsistent as it would front-focus in one shot, be fine the next, then exhibit slight backfocus in the 3rd. Maybe it was just my camera rather than the T2i model, but I find the 60D to be notably better in terms of focus accuracy (not perfect though).

I couldn't tell for sure, but I thought there may have been a SLIGHT back-focus with the 100 2 with the camera I tested it on at the store (also a 60D).

The 24-105 kit lens that came with the 5D Mk 3, however was off at the long end. Even with AFMA applied to that lens, at 100 it has nowhere near the IQ as the two 100 primes.

I have the 24-105 as well, and it definitely appears that the 100L can resolve more detail off buildings than the 24-105L can at 100 (I have not done a side-by-side comparison, but I was amazed at the quality from the former lens). But the 24-105 has been a fine lens for me. Maybe I have a good "copy" (or whatnot), but I have been pleased with it. For me, it is a great walk-around "compromise" lens. Good range, decent reach at 105 (too short for animal photos however), constant f4 aperture beats the 3.5-5.6 you typically get from consumer all-purpose zoom lenses, good IQ that you don't get from the 18-55 kit lens, and most importantly, it has IS. If I know what I'm going to shoot I usually go for a more specific lens, but hard-pressed to find a better all-around than this one.

The 100 2.0 is faster to focus than the 100 2.8L macro, probably due to the lesser total focus range. It is also very quiet focusing. I think you may have hit on a possible explanation for your initial impression of the lens' sharpness - using a pretty high shutter speed (1/250 or more) is what I found I needed to be sure to 'take the shake out' using handheld, which is more than the rule of thumb would say you needed for this lens; ie 1/160th on a crop sensor camera.

Ah, that makes sense. I went back and looked at the EXIF info from my test shots with that lens. Most were taken at 1/160s (which I would think would be fast enough, but apparently not). For sports I'd likely be going much higher than that anyway. Occasional meet & greets should they come up, though- might have an issue getting a steady image. I suppose flash + high ISO would be needed to compensate.

The 100L does have a switch on it to limit its focus range should you need to use it for general photo shooting (such as a portrait session, perhaps)...tested this out today and the focus is much faster, much more responsive like this. Left on "full", sometimes it can hunt through the entire range and slow down the process dramatically.

Again, thanks for your feedback, greatly appreciated!

 

[DigitalDivide]

I'd love to hear from someone who does have the 100 2- or perhaps even the 135L to hear impressions.

I have owned the 100 f/2 for about 8 years. I bought it with the intention of shooting a band playing in a club in China (the band members were friends of mine.) I was still shooting film at the time with an EOS 10S. I had a couple of goes at shooting in this environment without much success before buying the 100. I got the 50 f/1.4 at the same time, as part of an experiment to see if I preferred primes to zooms.

Reviews of this lens spoke very favorably about it's lack of flare compared to the 85 f/1.8, and my experience seemed to confirm that the 100 is good in this respect. I got some really nice shots in very low light with decent contrast and no flare issues. My copy seemed sharp on the 10S and the AF worked fine (although I may have used MF in the club due to the lack of light.)

Since then I have not used the lens extensively, and not at all on my recently acquired 5D2. After catching the L bug I have mostly focused on zooms, with the exception of the 300 f/4 IS (which I really like.) This thread may encourage my to dig this lens out again and see what it can really do. Its not that I really disliked using primes, but I got tired of constantly swapping lenses since I had only one body.

 

[mb66energy]

About the combo 100mm Macro + 2.0 100mm - I have it, I like it, I use it:

• 100mm Macro as walkaround for nature photography (landscape, macro (shure!)) with the benefit not to be limited in terms of close up capabilities.
• 2.0 100mm - as mentioned of other participants of this thread - to work without drawing attention.

I hate to own redundant equipment (except for backup) and owning both lenses is definitely a doubling in terms of focal range - but not in terms of application ranges!

Best - Michael

 

[FlowerPhotog]

Regarding the 24-105 as compared to the two 100 primes, my biggest complaint is lack of sharpness near the edges of the full frame on the 5DM3. I'd guess the outer 20-25% of the image, regardless of aperture shows slight fuzziness when pixel peeping at 100%, whereas both primes are sharp to the edge if stopped down just a little. On the t2i crop frame the 24-105 is much better, taking those edges out of the imaged area. Center image quality on both cameras approaches the sharpness of the primes. The edge sharpness improves on my copy once you get under about 50mm, so it's a good wide angle landscape lens, but at least on the full frame, it leaves something to be desired at the higher end of the focal length range if you need the entire image to be sharp. Don't get me wrong, it is still a good lens, but I guess I got spoiled having the two primes before I got it.

 

[Act444]

Yeah...I guess I can see how since I've always used a "crop" camera. Have no desire of going FF any time soon since I prefer the extra reach I get with the 1.6x camera, particularly with a telephoto like the 70-300 where 300 gives you pretty good reach in a compact package.

I try to avoid changing lenses "in the field", so I usually determine what it is I wish to shoot, then pick the appropriate lens before I go out. This means I usually pick zoom lenses since it means more flexibility, but fixed focals do have their advantages too, as I'm finding out.

 

[docholliday]

I had the 24-105, I hated it. It had that extending zoom that the hood attached to. Got rid of it and returned to the 24-70, much better and sharper.

The 100L is much sharper than people seem to think...seems that most of those people are "measurebators" and only care about the numbers. In reality, it is a very versatile lens, especially with the proper lighting technique:

 

[keithfullermusic]

I have the 100 non L and if I could only have a couple lenses that would be one of them. It is incredibly sharp, and I do mean incredibly sharp. It also has a beautiful bokeh, and almost gives a semi tiltshift look. It's not just used for macro shots, but that is why many people buy it.

I haven't used the L version, but I couldn't justify the extra cash for IS. In macro, IS is often times useless because your subject is moving - bug, flowers in the wind, etc.

In terms of sharpness, its incredible. Maybe the L is sharper, but the non L is so sharp that it doesn't even matter at that point in my opinion.

I use it all the time for portrait shots and general use. And having the ability to take macro shots opens new doors that are simply not possible with other lenses.

This set below is all with the 100mm, and every shot is at 2.8. I just did the entire set at 2.8 to give all the shots the same feel. They are sharp wide open, and believe me, at f/4 and smaller it is amazing how sharp the images are.

http://www.k2focus.com/cities/detroit/packard-plant/

My recommendation is the 100 macro non L.