The 100L doubles as a great portrait lens. In some settings I like it almost as well as my 135L.
A Photographer's Thanks - 600K views and Counting by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
A Photographer's Thanks - 600K views and Counting by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
Upvote
0
serendipidy said:Dukinald said:
Beautiful! Impressive.
thanks. This lens really shines. All the test shots were handheld.
Can't wait to try real 1:1 shots. So am looking for Macro flash/ring light and focus rail right now.
Will also try using it for portraits as most have suggested.
Upvote
0
Beaut pic's Dukinald. At the moment, I use my 580EX II off camera (with a ETTL cord) to act as a fill flash. I find the fill flash system works a treat when done well. The ability for the camera to handle high speed flash sync automatically (in full sun), while I concentrate on the picture taking, simply stunningDukinald said:serendipidy said:Dukinald said:
Beautiful! Impressive.
thanks. This lens really shines. All the test shots were handheld.
Can't wait to try real 1:1 shots. So am looking for Macro flash/ring light and focus rail right now.
Will also try using it for portraits as most have suggested.
I'll progress to the macro flash / RRS macro rails next year
Upvote
0
Spider Web, Photographer Emil Lundstrom by imaginize.net, on Flickr
Camilla Majewska, Photographer Emil Lundstrom by imaginize.net, on Flickr
Upvote
0
Sweet Kisses by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
Here's another example of the other thing this lens is great for - a wonderful medium telephoto lens that is a fabulous portraits lens.
Upvote
0
eml58 said:
Awesome explosion of color. This lens has been in my bag the second longest of my current collection, and won't be going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
Upvote
0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I've been considering this lens for years. Or the non-L version. From everything I've read, it seems there are a lot of folks that prefer the non-L because it is as sharp or sharper and the non-L supposedly focuses faster. What are your thoughts Dustin? I assume you are using this on the 6D. I realize some bodies focus better/faster with some lens over others. Do you find yourself waiting to focus this lens? Does the IS make that big of a different during walk around? (I realize IS is useless on a tripod when one would be doing actual macro work.) I typically prefer L lenses over standard EF but the EF lenses I do have I love. The 28 f/1.8 USM and the 15mm f/2.8 FishEye are prime (lol) examples of this. Thanks!!
Upvote
0
RustyTheGeek said:
Wow, Rusty, I don't know if I have ever heard the non-L referred to as sharper. The 100L is actually one of Canon's sharpest lenses. I can't compare focus myself, as I have never used the non-L lens. The 180L is the lens that has the biggest knock for slow focus amongst Canon's macro lenses. The 100L does has have a focus limiter, which is important when using it as a telephoto rather than macro lens, because macro lenses have a much broader range of focus points than typical lenses. When used properly, the 100L is instantly fast. If you don't have the limiter set, you can get through a very broad range of focus if you happen to miss focus, and that is why some call the focus slow.
Upvote
0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Dustin, I'm definitely a fan of your work. I see you have the 85/1.8 and 135/2 as well. Do you still find yourself reaching for the 100L for non-macro work despite the similarity in length to those very good and exceptional lenses? Would you ever consider giving up one (or both) of those other lenses in favor of the versatility of the 100L?
I currently own the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 135/2 and would like to eventually add the 100L to that collection, but I'd like to limit my total number of lenses. Maybe the 85 becomes unnecessary in that scenario...
Upvote
0
PhotoAviator said:
That's a good question (and one that I have kicked around mentally myself). Of the three, I would probably let the 85mm go first. But here's the thing: I also have the EOS M, and I find the 85 a really compelling option on it, too. Because it is reasonably inexpensive, I'll probably hang onto it. I do grab the 100L for some portrait and event work over the 135L for several reasons. One is focal length (sometimes 100mm is what you want). The second is stabilization. The third is weather sealing (neither the 85 or 135L have it). One final reason I might grab it is for tight framing of faces where I want to get closer than what the 135L allows.
I do find focus on my 85mm f/1.8 perhaps the most inconsistent of all my lenses despite very careful AFMA. It is one of the oldest lenses in my kit (in terms of design...and actual age) and I just don't think it is quite as good. I am accustomed to a very, very high success rate of perfectly sharp images in my work, and I find that I am surprised by a slight ooF hit from my 85 most often. It's not bad at all, but just slightly worse.
Upvote
0
