Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

  • Thread starter Thread starter tianxiaozhang
  • Start date Start date
florianbieler.de said:
I mainly use the 135L now for portrait work but when it's a cold and wet weather like today, I pull out that weather isolated 100L and are also satisfied ;D


Linda VIII von Florian Bieler auf Flickr

Two things - first, I don't think that the 100L has more weather sealing than the 135L but 2) I certainly can't argue with the result you got in this portrait. Gorgeous! I added you as a contact on Flickr. I like using both of these lenses for portrait work as well, depending on how much operating room I have.
 
Upvote 0
8501503361_4651a5045f_c.jpg
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Two things - first, I don't think that the 100L has more weather sealing than the 135L

Well then think again, the 100L is dust and water isolated while the 135L is not. So I would rather let it come down to it! It's clearly stated in the specsheets on Canon's official german website, strangely not on their english one, but just go ahead and google 100mm weather isolated and 135mm weather isolated.

Btw you can check your lens for weather sealing if you just look at the mount of it, when it has that small rubber ring around the mount it's isolated. I just compared my 135 and 100 and guess what I found... ;D
 
Upvote 0
florianbieler.de said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Two things - first, I don't think that the 100L has more weather sealing than the 135L

Well then think again, the 100L is dust and water isolated while the 135L is not. So I would rather let it come down to it! It's clearly stated in the specsheets on Canon's official german website, strangely not on their english one, but just go ahead and google 100mm weather isolated and 135mm weather isolated.

Btw you can check your lens for weather sealing if you just look at the mount of it, when it has that small rubber ring around the mount it's isolated. I just compared my 135 and 100 and guess what I found... ;D

You know what - I was sure there was a rubber gasket on the 135L, but I just checked mine and...no...there is not. I was wrong....imagine that ;D
 
Upvote 0
I love this lens, but it seems to me that it is optimized for closer range. I don't find that it resolves like my 135L wide open in the 25-50 foot range. The 100L is deadly up close, and makes a nice multipurpose prime stopped down a bit at distance, but I do find that I am somewhat underwhelmed at the detail wide open in the medium distance range.

And yes, I have done the AFMA on my copy.

Anyone else have a similar experience?
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I love this lens, but it seems to me that it is optimized for closer range. I don't find that it resolves like my 135L wide open in the 25-50 foot range. The 100L is deadly up close, and makes a nice multipurpose prime stopped down a bit at distance, but I do find that I am somewhat underwhelmed at the detail wide open in the medium distance range.

And yes, I have done the AFMA on my copy.

Anyone else have a similar experience?

My 135L is slightly better at f/2.8 (and much better at f/2 :) ) but it is a slight difference only. I just tested them outside - it is a cold but sunny day here - and I am satisfied with my 100L.
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
P.S. - It is almost like a I need a second AFMA for medium range.

I've had fits with mine. The symptoms are you think you have AFMA set and you cannot get consistently sharp shots as telephoto. In fact they're rarely sharp and usually just enough off to be not quite right, with no zone of sharp focus (i.e. not a case where it just back or front focused). But interestingly it is not as much a problem using it as a macro. And when a tele shot works right, it has amazing IQ.

I finally isolated a 100% repeatable and quantifiable issue in testing. How I tested was setup tripod and test target, tether to EOS Utility, magnify 200% in EOS Utility. Then increment the focus single steps via the ">" and "<" buttons.

What I saw with my copy was that when changing the direction of focus (i.e. several ">" clicks and then a single "<" click or visa versa) the focus would change what looks like about 20 single clicks worth of going only a single direction. And not only that, the image would actually shift in the viewer frame. So something in the mechanical focus mechanism has some slop/play in it.

BTW, IS on/off doesn't make any difference in my case and I tested a friend's copy the same way and it did not exhibit this issue.

I sent it to Canon and paid over $200 and it came back the same way. I complained to them and did a video screen grab of the EOS Utility session and sent it back to them again. It should be here Tuesday and this time they took alot longer, so hopefully fixed this time.

I'll post more later this week...
 
Upvote 0
skitron said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
P.S. - It is almost like a I need a second AFMA for medium range.

I've had fits with mine. The symptoms are you think you have AFMA set and you cannot get consistently sharp shots as telephoto. In fact they're rarely sharp and usually just enough off to be not quite right, with no zone of sharp focus (i.e. not a case where it just back or front focused). But interestingly it is not as much a problem using it as a macro. And when a tele shot works right, it has amazing IQ.

I finally isolated a 100% repeatable and quantifiable issue in testing. How I tested was setup tripod and test target, tether to EOS Utility, magnify 200% in EOS Utility. Then increment the focus single steps via the ">" and "<" buttons.

What I saw with my copy was that when changing the direction of focus (i.e. several ">" clicks and then a single "<" click or visa versa) the focus would change what looks like about 20 single clicks worth of going only a single direction. And not only that, the image would actually shift in the viewer frame. So something in the mechanical focus mechanism has some slop/play in it.

BTW, IS on/off doesn't make any difference in my case and I tested a friend's copy the same way and it did not exhibit this issue.

I sent it to Canon and paid over $200 and it came back the same way. I complained to them and did a video screen grab of the EOS Utility session and sent it back to them again. It should be here Tuesday and this time they took alot longer, so hopefully fixed this time.

I'll post more later this week...

Interesting. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
skitron said:
I'll post more later this week...

Interesting. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Got the lens back, Canon claims they could not duplicate what I illustrated on the screen capture video when they (supposedly) tried it themselves. Funny, it still does it here just like it did before... And they go on to say "it performs as it should". So this one is outta here and all I can say is my experience with Sigma repair was light years better than my experience with Canon...

The bozos at Canon repair can't even do their customer survey right. They email it before I even get the lens back and now that I have the lens, the survey link is expired. But then, maybe they have a reason for doing it that way and they don't want their bosses to know the truth what a customer thinks about them?

Never again do I send them something out of warranty. They just take your money and give it back the same condition you sent it in. Which is sad, it is a great lens when it works.
 
Upvote 0
rpt said:
Don Haines said:
And the Andromeda Galaxy..... not just for things small and/or close.....
Wow! That is cool! On the iPad I can't see the Exif. I'll look at it later. Really curious about the settings. It looks very crisp.
Yeah I'm a little confused. EFIX reads ...

30 seconds, f/5.6, ISO1600 (via EOS 60D), 400mm (via 120-400mm)
... which I presume is the EF70-200 @f/2.8 + 2X TC

Surely the EXIF info is amiss. Apart from the wrong lens for the discussion, there isn't remotely enough exposure time for that outcome. :-X
 
Upvote 0