100mm macro L on a 7d

[azezal]

Hi everyone,I have been using a 7d for about a year now and I know its limitations quite well.I am sure ff is the way to go for the future though I am pretty sure a 6d isn't the answer for a 7d user (atleast me).

I'm 17, still a student and 10 years away from a ff upgrade the 100 macro might as well be my last lens so I was wondering if its the right choice for a portrait/lowish light lens with a macro bonus.or should I consider something else within that budget (not the non l version I'm pretty sure about that too)

P.S- I love taking shots in low light and light painting (i know, 7d is a perfect camera for that) so I am pretty frustrated on being limited to bright daylight shots so any tips are welcome,after all in 10 years point and shoots will have better ISO performance so i'll make the switch then

Thanks in advance

P.P.S- this is my first post ,really interested on what neuro has to say

 

[Loswr]

The 100L Macro performs very well on a 7D. If you want to shoot macro and an occasional portrait, the it's a great purchase. But IMO, I'd not really describe it as a lens that's ideal for low light/portrait use. Staying within that budget, I'd recommend considering getting the 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 for low light and portraits (depending on focal length preference - I like tighter portraits, love the 85mm FoV on APS-C) and the 100mm non-L (or the EF-S 60mm, since FF is a ways off) for macro shooting.

 

[AmbientLight]

If you write a 100 macro might as well be your last lens for a while, what are your other lenses? Do you happen to already have any fast 50mm or 85mm primes?

 

[Kristofgss]

I'd suggest the 85 F1.8 or 50F1.4 here as well. I have the 100 LIS and it's a nice lens, but it's more of a niche lens (unless you need it for macro) I nearly always have the 50 for low-light shooting. The 100 L IS is quite large too compared to the other two, so take that into account if you take your camera outside often.

 

[azezal]

I have a 50mm 1.8 and a 18-135kit lens would sell both to get the 100macro

 

[azezal]

special thanks to Neuro
Btw I believe in owning l lenses only

 

[AmbientLight]

Well, the 100mm L is quite a fine lens, but if you reduce your kit to just this lens you will end up pretty much focal-length limited, that is limited to 100mm.

I suggest to go for the 100mm L lens first, occupy yourself shooting macros and tight portraits for a while and then to add a 50mm f1.4, which is reasonably fast and rather affordable as an extra lens. This is of course once you overcome that believe to own one lens only .

 

[azezal]

I don't think you get it
selling gear is the only way for me to own L glass
Or I could sell 7d and downgrade to a rebel with 2 lenses

Personally I wouldn't hesitate lasting a decade with a 5d3 and a 50 1.2 but $$$$$ don't grow on trees specially for someone like me

 

[1255]

i like the way you think.

 

[cervantes]

Keep the 50 1.8!!!!!
Why would you sell that for probably 50 lame bucks and limit your capabilities by 50%??
When you consider a lens for ~800$ 50 more or less must still be in your budget. Maybe you can negotiate the price a little or at least compare prices efficiently. With 100L and a nifty fifty you should be able to make some pretty impressive pictures!
With APS-C even 50mm is already a bit long.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its great for a macro lens on a 7D, but get the 100 f/2 or 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and low light.

 

[TexPhoto]

It's a great macro lens, but it is very long for portraits, (except maybe headshots) and seems like a really bad choice to be your only lens.

Having L Glass is a nice, but the wrong L lens will not make for the right photo. I'd keep the gear you have over trading those lenses for a 100mm L Macro. If you read to much here, you will begin to think photography is all about the gear. it's not. It's about the photos.

Do you sell Microstock at iStockPhoto or similar? If not, why not? Takes a bit to start earning, but the money in your pocket will buy more gear, and get you closer to a bag full of L glass.

 

[AdamJ]

I don't think you get it
selling gear is the only way for me to own L glass
Or I could sell 7d and downgrade to a rebel with 2 lenses

Personally I wouldn't hesitate lasting a decade with a 5d3 and a 50 1.2 but $$$$$ don't grow on trees specially for someone like me

The 100mm L would be a good fit with your other gear but to trade your other lenses for it would severely limit your creative range. You might be overestimating the importance of ultimate image sharpness - how often is it the key feature of a great photograph?

I'd advise you to keep the existing lenses and add something fast, cheap and good, like an 85mm f/1.8.

Ps. I have a cold virus right now and this neuro-worshipping has only compounded my feelings of nausea.

 

[Loswr]

Btw I believe in owning l lenses only

I knew a guy who believed in driving only Mercedes cars. He had to give up his apartment to afford the payments, and found living inside a C-class to be very cramped. :

Personally, I own mostly L lenses. But then, I'm not a student anymore...

I don't think you get it
selling gear is the only way for me to own L glass

I suppose it comes down to philosophy...but in all honesty, with an L-lens you are paying a significant premium for what amounts to a small boost in IQ and/or build, and in some cases, not even an IQ boost - the 17-55mm and 15-85mm EF-S lenses outperform all of the UWA and 'general purpose' L zooms (24-70, 24-105, 17-40, 16-35 II, with the possible exception of the 24-70 II) when compared on the same APS-C body.

The most important consideration in choosing a lens, IMO, is focal length. You pick that first, then make the other decisions. Having only a 100mm lens for an APS-C camera is going to be extremely limiting.

If I were going to have just one lens for an APS-C camera, it would be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I could certainly see selling your 18-135mm to help fund that lens. Later, add a used extension tube and you've got near-macro capabilities.

 

[Blakegard]

Honestly if you think the 100L macro is going to be your last lens you really need to open your mind up... As for being on a budget I say drop the L glass invest in Ef-S lenses (Since you don't plan on going to FF for 10 Years) and purchase a wide angle and non L 100mm and keep your 50mm 1.8

Personally I do portraits, sports, and wildlife. I keep a 50mm 1.8 for portrait/low light shooting and a 70-300 for sports and use both for wildlife depending on subject. My next lens is easily going to be a 10-22 because in my opinion it is the best lens for all purpose shooting and brings me hours of joy.
My point don't let money be a deciding factor, you get what you pay for. The 100mm will limit you more than it will help you if it's your sole lens. Just to drive the point, get more than one lens and like I said since you don't plan on going FF anytime soon EF-S is the way to go. I recommend you opt out on buying lenses tho until you can afford it if you're "low" on funds.

 

[skitron]

I have the 100L and its a very nice lens, but remember on a 7D it shoots like a 160 on a FF. I bought it because its a very good macro that can double as a short tele and works reasonably well in marginal light with the IS. But I also have a decent 50 and 35 to go with it. No way I'd want the 100L as my primary lens, especially on a crop body.

I also wouldn't get married to the idea of "L" only, you'll miss out on some great glass going that route...especially if you're budget constrained. And if you aren't budget constrained, Zeiss has some pretty nifty stuff you'd be passing up.

 

[sdsr]

The first thing I would do if contemplating the 100L as my only lens would be to set my zoom lens at 100mm, spend a week or two taking photos at no other focal length and see how often I wished I had another choice. You may find it more limiting than you expect (or you may not; we're all different).

Much as I like my 100L, I think that if I were in your situation I would take another route: keep the 50 f/1.8 and get the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 plus a wide angle - Samyang 14 f/2.8, perhaps, or Canon 28 f/1.8. Or I might risk the extra noise in low light and buy a used 70-200 f/4 IS. (I would also point out that although the 100L is 2.8, and can be used to good effect in low light, like all (?) macro lenses it focuses rather slowly in very low light - not as well as the 85 1.8 or 100 2.)

 

[Axilrod]

I agree with SDSR, try shooting with your 18-135@100mm for a while and see how you feel. Personally I think the 100mm will be too long on the 7D (160mm full frame equivalent), and honestly even on full frame I think the 100mm could feel limiting if it were your only lens. I can't say it's a good choice, especially considering the versatility of the lenses you would be giving up for it.

I think you need to have some kind of general purpose zoom, or if you're set on getting a prime I would try something a bit shorter (50mm at the most). Check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and if you shopped used you could probably get that, a 50mm f/1.4, and an 85mm f/1.8 for the price of the 100L (and you could do WAY more with that setup. Either that or a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which is my favorite general purpose lens for an APS-C body. Or if you're on a budget I've heard good things about the 15-85mm.

So for a zoom, 17-55 f/2.8 IS

Primes:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
and either:
a) Sigma 50mm f/1.4

b) Canon 50mm f/1.4 + Canon 85mm f/1.8 (both can be found used for around $300)

Just a thought. The Canon 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are excellent lenses, especially the 85mm and both would be great for portraits. Add the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and you have a great walkaround prime. They would definitely keep you busy for a while and you would see a huge improvement in the quality of your images over your current setup. It would also help out with the low-light stuff you mentioned.

Whatever you do I would not get the 100L now if it's going to be your only lens. I think you're too focused on the versatility of the lens and the fact that it's an L lens, but looking at the big picture it's just not the right choice. Macro is fun, but it can get old pretty quickly and on an APS-C body 100mm is just too long to be your only lens. I'm pretty confident you would be happy with any combination of the lenses I mentioned. Even a $300-$400 prime is going to have comparable image quality (and in some cases better) than almost any L zoom. And I remember being set on L lenses and I could have saved myself a whole lot of trouble if I had checked out Zeiss lenses before I spent a year buying, trading, and re-selling almost every Canon prime under 200mm.

 

[azezal]

Thank you everyone for your time
I feel enlightened,thank god I consulted you guys,this is gonna be a long post so first up

It absolutely kills me to sell any of my gear I have some sort of emotional connection with them specialy the 50 mm

I know that just the 100mil can (and is ) limiting but I have almost unrestricted access to my cousin's 24mm for atleast next 3 years

Though I have nothing my 7d has mounted several fantastic lenses including the 200 f2,of all lenses I liked the 100mm the mistake have constantly been using my friend's 100 L(i can probably compose with my eyes closed)

The17-40 caught my eye

I'm currently leaning towards a 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup with the 24 as my occasional wideangle backup

Renting is practically non existent in my country and 2nd hand lenses the same

3rd party lenses too are hard to come by

I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range

Thanks in advance

 

[Loswr]

If you think that was a long post, read some of jrista's...