I'd like to start doing macro photography, I'm not into faffing with flash, tripods and such, I like to handhold and shoot... I have a 135mm 2.0L and was pondering if I got a 100mm 2.8L macro, would I still use the 135mm ? It's currently one of the three lenses I use most. I'm aware of focal length change, but what about the look of the images ? The colour and soft focus areas, Is there a difference to the look when used as a normal telephoto at similar lengths to the 135mm ?
100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
- Thread starter Haydn1971
- Start date
- Status
B
bobbysamat
Guest
i have the 100mm2.8 macro and i would only use it for portraits if i didn't have another lens with me. the macro lens shows you such a narrow depth of field in your view finder that it makes it hard to focus handheld. at least for me. i've probably shot 2000-2500 frames with it. i'd say about 10 of those were handheld. that lens and a tripod make for some sharp pictures.
Upvote
0
bobbysamat said:
Why would the macro have a shallower DoF? For equivalent FoV at the widest aperture the macro should have greater DoF than the 135. Or is there something different about macro lenses? Some clarification is appreciated.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the reply, some real world comments on macro would be good too....
Looks like I'm getting a lensbaby composer for Xmas from my wife, that opens some additional macro possibilities too ;-)
Looks like I'm getting a lensbaby composer for Xmas from my wife, that opens some additional macro possibilities too ;-)
Upvote
0
P
PackLight
Guest
The 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro is an excellent choice if you want to start doing macro. If you want to start doing macro and you only want to do it hand held it is the best choice IMO. I own it and use it for just that reason, it is great.
If you still owned the 135mm after you bought the 100mm you would probably use it for the benefits described by others.
Reading between the lines maybe? Are you asking if you should sell your 135mm and replace it with the 100mm?
If so the 100mm will substitute for the 135, and do many things it can do but probably not as well. The 135mm would have a very hard time taking a 1/1 picture of a lady bug, hand held and image stabilized. IMO and for my uses the 100mm would be the more versatile of the two. But I prefer bug portraits over people portraits.
If you still owned the 135mm after you bought the 100mm you would probably use it for the benefits described by others.
Reading between the lines maybe? Are you asking if you should sell your 135mm and replace it with the 100mm?
If so the 100mm will substitute for the 135, and do many things it can do but probably not as well. The 135mm would have a very hard time taking a 1/1 picture of a lady bug, hand held and image stabilized. IMO and for my uses the 100mm would be the more versatile of the two. But I prefer bug portraits over people portraits.
Upvote
0
P
PackLight
Guest
sagittariansrock said:
Staying away from the 135mm vs 100mm DOF conversation, and equivalent FOV, just because it is a Macro lens doesn't change the DOF you get from a 100mm non Macro lens to a 100mm Macro lens.
@bobbysamat do you have the Non L version of the 100mm which does not have IS? What makes the 100mm f/2.8 L IS great is the fact it does have hybrid IS and can be hand held.
Upvote
0
PackLight said:
+1. IQ wise, they're the same. I had the non-L. Very sharp from edge to edge and renders the colors nicely. It's just that with the non-L version, I limit myself from 1/150 to 1/200 (I had to use flash) handheld. I can go as low as 1/100 or 1/60 but it will require a lot, lot of patience to shoot. I think with IS, I can handheld more for at least 2-3 stops.
Upvote
0
P
PackLight
Guest
Jesse said:
Check this out;
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Edit; Neuro beat me by a second.
Second Edit; it was really a minute.
Upvote
0
Or some "real world" examples, as they like to say:
Vi <3's Swings! by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Violet by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Stick + Bench = Fun by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Pink Velcro by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
I've had the L & non-L versions. Didn't notice a difference. Didn't miss IS. I have the 135 f/2 now.
Oh, and that top one was shot on Ai-Servo, focus speed is just fine. The fun thing about a macro lens is that you can basically use it like a "zoom" since there is such a small MFD.
Vi <3's Swings! by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Violet by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Stick + Bench = Fun by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Pink Velcro by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
I've had the L & non-L versions. Didn't notice a difference. Didn't miss IS. I have the 135 f/2 now.
Oh, and that top one was shot on Ai-Servo, focus speed is just fine. The fun thing about a macro lens is that you can basically use it like a "zoom" since there is such a small MFD.
Upvote
0
Another consideration, with the Kenko extension tubes set, you can get close to 1:1 (I think it's something like 90% life size from memory) when attached to the 135 and you can get some really unusual, very low DoF results with it. In fact the depth of field at f/2 on the 135 with extensions tubes and minimum focal distance is about the thickness of a petal. It isn't to everyone's taste, but if you want to try something different, you've still got more traditional near macro shots as well.
Wood Sorrel by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr
Artistic Gallerina by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr
For what it's worth, I often handhold for macro, simply because most of the time, I'd miss the shot if I had to set up a tripod (although the first example was with a tripod and the second with a thin bean bag on the ground, as flowers and fungi don't move very quick). Also, with even the slightest breeze, macro is awkward, so I need to increase the shutterspeed anyway. I have the non-IS 100mm macro, which I use for most macro shots and only use the 135 for the more creative shots, as it is slightly unbalanced with 68mm of extension tubes.
Wood Sorrel by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr
Artistic Gallerina by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr
For what it's worth, I often handhold for macro, simply because most of the time, I'd miss the shot if I had to set up a tripod (although the first example was with a tripod and the second with a thin bean bag on the ground, as flowers and fungi don't move very quick). Also, with even the slightest breeze, macro is awkward, so I need to increase the shutterspeed anyway. I have the non-IS 100mm macro, which I use for most macro shots and only use the 135 for the more creative shots, as it is slightly unbalanced with 68mm of extension tubes.
Upvote
0
I have the 100L, awesome lens. I always use it handheld for 1:1 macros, works like a charm. Some of my pics as examples can be found here:
http://www.ruddyflorentino.com/#!nature|c3c1
http://www.ruddyflorentino.com/#!nature|c3c1
Upvote
0
sagittariansrock said:
If identically framed for both 100mm lenses, then yes the DoF doesn't change. But comparing the 100mm macro with the 135mm at the same framing, DoF should be less with the 100mm macro.
For most uses the 100mm macro should be able to replace the 135mm. Comparing the two -
IQ - similar
100mm macro benefits - shorter MFD, 1:1 magnification, Hybrid IS
135mm benefits - longer reach, 1 stop faster
So unless you're a sports shooter, you can simply walk up closer to your subject and turn on IS to negate the 135mm's reach and 1-stop advantage.
Upvote
0
- Status
