100mm f2.8 IS macro - due for replacement?

[ahsanford]

Believe it or not, they are somewhat 'due' for a new FF macro lens..........

Nonsense, where has lens technology moved on to since the 100 L Macro came out? Blue goo and coatings, neither of which are enough to warrant the 100 L getting upgraded.

With respect, please read the rest of my prior post. I then went on to say "the 100L is great as is" and stated that other higher-end FF macro lenses like the MP-E and 180L might be improved instead.

Imagine an EF 180mm f/3.5L IS with telephoto AF speed like the 100L... That would be a very nice piece of kit.

- A

 

[J.R.]

Imagine an EF 180mm f/3.5L IS with telephoto AF speed like the 100L... That would be a very nice piece of kit.

I'd buy an updated 180L in a heartbeat. That being said, to me fast AF and hybrid IS in a 180L II won't matter all that much.

Previously, I used to feel that fast AF and hybrid IS would be dead useful but after some shooting with the 180L, I came to realise that any serious macro with a long lens is going to be done on a tripod with manual focus.

 

[GuyF]

Thank you to all who replied. That's the great thing about this site, post a reasonable question and get good advice without any trolls showing up!

I'll order the lens this weekend and should get it on Tuesday. I'll probably still use the Sigma for 99% of portraits (as long as you nail focus, f1.4 is brilliant).

Enjoy your weekend.


UPDATE - just ordered the lens from Calumet UK who are giving away up to £50 worth of accessories when buying gear over £500. So I'm getting a Hahnel Extreme HLX-E6 replacement battery too for my 5D3 worth £49.99 (my original Canon battery is down to the red health level). Can the weekend get any better? (Hint: yes, start of the 2016 F1 season - woohoo!)

 

[scyrene]

The MP-E 65, I doubt if that will ever get upgraded, it has no real competition so why bother? It won the competition in the field of one! IS probably wouldn't be any use in it because it's effectiveness is reduced as magnification increases, it isn't a heavy lens, it doesn't need Blue goo so no upgrade.

I agree it's unlikely to be updated, nor does it really need it. However, being fussy, it could do with more aperture blades - those hexagonal specular highlights are pretty unappealing.

 

[Antono Refa]

The MP-E 65, I doubt if that will ever get upgraded, it has no real competition so why bother? It won the competition in the field of one!

<nitpick>There's a 5x macro lens for m43 by Yasuhara Nanoha.</nitpick>

 

[nhz]

Bearing in mind the normal lifespan/shelf life of macro lenses and given the fact that it is Canon's newest one and the only one with Hybrid IS, I'd be shocked to see it replaced/upgraded in the next ten years.

Believe it or not, they are somewhat 'due' for a new FF macro lens:
(EF macro lenses per Northlight)

1987: 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro (1:2)
1996: 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1990: 100mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1)
1999: 65mm f/2.8 Macro (5:1)
2000: 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (1:1)
2008: 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM (1:1)

On the budget-ish side, Canon values getting people into macro photography, so a solid 'starter' macro lens in the $250-500 range is needed. I've heard the non-L 100mm is a good sharpness-per-dollar lens, but the starter 50mm compact macro seems to have been left behind. Perhaps that's for a reason, but perhaps a refresh is coming?

On the pricey side, as stated before, the 100L is great as is. So an update to the 5x (an unbelievably specialized piece of gear) or -- more likely -- an update to the longer 180L (or something in the 150-200 neighborhood) might be warranted. I seem to recall the 180L lacking fast focusing, IS or weather-sealing -- we can debate if those are musts for what is a more dedicated macro lens, but certainly the lens could be improved.

- A

Agree with others that an upgrade of the 100L isn't likely but a new 150-200mm macro with IS could be very interesting.

I shoot a lot of macro, mostly dragonflies and almost everything hand-held (with natural light) because my subjects often move quickly. I have used several other macro lenses over the last 15 years and as often, what is the best lens really depends on the subject and the photographer. I started with Sigma 2.8/105 macro, moved up to Sigma 2.8/150 macro for better working distance (awesome optics as a bonus!).

However, without a tripod both macro lenses quickly reach their limit when magnification increases and the 2.8/150 wasn't very good as a general tele lens (even at f/5.6-8 soft corners and inaccurate AF). So I purchased the 100L as a dual purpose lens for both macro and short tele, with IS that affords better close ups. The 100L is indeed better than the Sigma 150 at infinity, but I'm not impressed with its sharpness there - closeup sharpness is excellent though. The IS is a big improvement for close-ups, but for general dragonfly shots often too short. I'm now often using my 4/300 IS instead which has great working distance (especially for flying dragonflies) and decent IS. A 150-200 IS would be a good compromise (for me a 4/300 DO with better IS, better AF and better magnification compared to the 4/300IS would be great as well).

I looked at the Sigma 2.8/150 OS and and 2.8/180 OS but they are quite heavy lenses, and to me that kind of defeats the purpose of hand-held shooting. Sigma isn't known for building light lenses lately, and this is something where Canon can probably compete - plus maybe with better IS and AF. My impression from reviews is that the Canon hybrid IS works better for close-ups.

As to an entry-level macro lens: there is plenty of cheap macro lenses on the used market, even for 100 euros or so you can find pretty good ones. I doubt this is an interesting market for Canon ...

 

[Maximilian]

So the question is, as I don't shoot a huge amount of macro stuff but like having one available, should I get one now or is the lens likely to get updated anytime soon?

Short: Just get it, if you want an can afford it.

Long:
This lens ist still as new as possible. I don't expect any replacement within the next 5 or up to 10 years.
Built fully L style, Center IQ is great, AF is fast, you have a limit switch, HIS is unique for a macro. There is nothing to complain.
If you want a macro lens, this one is great. I use it also quite often as a standard tele and portrait lens.
But here the f2.8 is the "limiting" factor as you can get more aperture frome the 100/2.0 for example.
Also the bokeh is not as creamy as some would want it for that. But I am fine with it.
I simply love that lens!

 

[privatebydesign]

The MP-E 65, I doubt if that will ever get upgraded, it has no real competition so why bother? It won the competition in the field of one!

<nitpick>There's a 5x macro lens for m43 by Yasuhara Nanoha.</nitpick>

Hmm, m4/3 isn't quite the same as FF though is it? At just 1/4 the sensor area they aren't really the same thing.