Does it make sense to keep my EF 100mm f2.0?

[Tanja]

I have a EF 100mm f2.0 i use for portraits.

Now i will buy the 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro lens.

I ask myself it it makes sense to keep the 100mm f2.0?
Will i use it when i have the L?

Does f2.0 vs. f2.8 makes such a big difference that i like to keep the f2.0?
I use the EF 100mm f2.0 at f2.0 or f2.2 most of the time. I bought it for shallow DOF.

Or will the Macro be so good that i don´t use the EF 100mm f2.0 anymore?

Anyone who was in the same situation?
What do you think?

 

[adhocphotographer]

Comparing the IQ of each (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0) i don't think you would need the f/2 once you get the 2.8L....

but since you are going to buy the 100L anyway, you can compare them yourself and see if the f/2 still has a place in your bag... if not, sell it. I'm sure you will get a good re-sale price on it!

Either way, enjoy your new lens.

Disclaimer : I do not, nor have not, owned or used either of these lenses

 

[Tanja]

but since you are going to buy the 100L anyway, you can compare them yourself and see if the f/2 still has a place in your bag... if not, sell it. I'm sure you will get a good re-sale price on it!

Of course.. and i will.

I just wanted to know what you guys think (or how you decided in the same situation).

It will be a few days till i get my EF 100mm L IS.

 

[noncho]

Well, I think 100/2 will be still OK, because is smaller and have better bokeh for portraits. I'm actually just wondering to buy 100/2

 

[Tanja]

Well, I think 100/2 will be still OK, because is smaller and have better bokeh for portraits. I'm actually just wondering to buy 100/2

it´s a very nice lens.

thought it has some problems with purple fringing wide open.
not a dealbreaker but you notice it when you shoot wide open and have bright edges.

sharpness is better then with the 85mm f1.8 i had before.
fringing of the 85mm f1,8 was also worse then the 100mm f2.0.

i will do my tests and look if the bokeh difference between the 100mm L and 100mm f2.0 is worth it.

thought i don´t prefer to have 2 lenses who cover the same focal length.
it´s just a hobby for me and if i sell the 100mm f2.0 i could buy another lens.

 

[oscaroo]

Gday.

I've the 100f2 and I have tried the 100L macro.

I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!
The L doesn't have the purple fringing, which I find a total pain.

If I were you I'd sell the 100 f2, and maybe replace it with the 135mm L f2. That one has less/none purple fringing.
The purple fringing means that I don't use the 100 f2 often. But when I do use it , boy it is sharp!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!

Yep - if you shoot indoor sports or the like, the extra stop and faster AF of the 100/2 make it a better choice.

 

[georgecpappas]

I own and use both for different reasons...If your "eye" leads you to shoot a lot at that focal length, then keeping both of them can make sense.

The extra stop of speed can be a difference-maker depending on the lighting conditions; additionally, I prefer the rendering of the 2.0 for portraits. I have had this lens for a decade and am continually pleased with its results. The lens is also non-threatening to subjects which is a plus.

The macro is great for close focusing and appears "sharper"; that doesn't make it better depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

I tend to use the 2.0 more often, but still find enough use for the macro to keep it - at least for now.

 

[hamada]

I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!

i read the EF 100mm F2.8 IS L macro is pretty fast focusing?
photozone writes "very fast AF".

and it has an AF limiter, so it should be fast.

is it not?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!

i read the EF 100mm F2.8 IS L macro is pretty fast focusing?

It's all relative. Compared to the 85L II, the 100L is a speed demon. But it's a lot slower than most other L-series lenses.

 

[hamada]

I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!

i read the EF 100mm F2.8 IS L macro is pretty fast focusing?

It's all relative. Compared to the 85L II, the 100L is a speed demon. But it's a lot slower than most other L-series lenses.

but the EF 100 f2.0 is not an L lens and much older... but it is still noticeable faster?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!

i read the EF 100mm F2.8 IS L macro is pretty fast focusing?

It's all relative. Compared to the 85L II, the 100L is a speed demon. But it's a lot slower than most other L-series lenses.

but the EF 100 f2.0 is not an L lens... but it is still noticeable faster?

Yes, it is. The 85/1.8 is also faster, and much faster than the 85L. For L-series lenses, I think the three slowest ones are the 180L Macro, the 85L, and the 100L Macro. The 100L Macro also seems to hunt for focus more frequently than many other lenses, especially in dim light.

It's also worth noting that despite being an f/2.8 lens, the 100L is in 'Group C' meaning on the 1D X/5DIII it doesn't activate any of the high-precision f/2.8 cross points. But not to be outdone, the 180L Macro is in Group G, so while it's an f/3.5 lens not only does it not use the f/4 crosses, it can only use 33 of the 1D X/5DIII's 61 AF points.

Bottom line, don't look to a macro lens for excellent AF. Which is ok for me, because I'm almost always manually focusing for macro shooting, anyway.

 

[K-amps]

I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!

Yep - if you shoot indoor sports or the like, the extra stop and faster AF of the 100/2 make it a better choice.

Yes 2x the shutter speed also... albeit at a loss of sharpness. the 100/2 @F2 is not as sharp as the 100L is at 2.8.

But at 2.8 they are close, but it also defeats the advantage of a larger aperture of the 100 F2.

So if you want razor sharp images wide open, the 100L might be a better choice, if shutterspeed and AF speed are important then the duplication of ranges might be acceptable... although that would suggest you can afford a duplication, in which case, I'd suggest get the 135L and sell the 100F2, the 135L betters the 100F2 in almost every parameter.

I too had the 86 F1.8 which some say is very similar to the 100F2, but it was no where as sharp as the 100L. Also the minimum Focus distance of the 100F2 was a tad disappointing... for me, so I sold them and kept the 100L.

 

[RLPhoto]

100 F/2 -------> 135L

 

[mb66energy]

I have a EF 100mm f2.0 i use for portraits.

Now i will buy the 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro lens.

I ask myself it it makes sense to keep the 100mm f2.0?
Will i use it when i have the L?

Does f2.0 vs. f2.8 makes such a big difference that i like to keep the f2.0?
I use the EF 100mm f2.0 at f2.0 or f2.2 most of the time. I bought it for shallow DOF.

Or will the Macro be so good that i don´t use the EF 100mm f2.0 anymore?

Anyone who was in the same situation?
What do you think?

I was in a similar situation, but I choose the non-IS 100mm macro lens because
of similar (or slightly better) overall IQ and I will keep the 2.0 100 lens:
* I like to have f/2.0 for thin depth of field
* I like the small size/unobtrusiveness of the 2.0 100
* I like the overall structure/quality of the images at f/4.0-8.0: very detailed and contrasty
but far from unnaturally sharp
* I am amateur, so I love to shoot photos (it's in the name amateuer, perhaps amare, to love)

 

[hamada]

I was in a similar situation, but I choose the non-IS 100mm macro lens because of similar (or slightly better) overall IQ and I will keep the 2.0 100 lens:

first time i hear that the non L version has better IQ... i highly doubt that.
every review i have read so far tells the L is slightly better.

equal maybe but the non L better? that is stuff people tell themself so they don´t have to buy the more expensive L lens.

 

[Tanja]

I heard they are equal until f11.
Center performance is marginal better on the L version.

Above f11 the L version is better.
The Photozone analysis seems to support that.

Beside sharpness, i heard the contrast and bokeh of the L version is better.

After cashback i pay 220 euro more for the L version (480 vs. 700 euro).
IS and weathersealing are worth it i think.

And the Reviewer here at CR really seems to like it:

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-100-f2-8l-is-macro/

 

[sunnyVan]

Can't really comment on the 100mm L as I have the non L version only. But a lot of people say they are almost the same optically.

I used the 100mm macro for portrait in the past wide open. It's sharp enough but at f4 is where it shines. I would expect the L to behave similarly--ok wide open, great at 4 for portrait.

I thought about getting the 100 f2 but in the end decided to get the 85 1.8 instead. 100 seems too long indoor. 85 is just right. I didn't want two lenses at the same focal length. Plus I have a zoom that covers 100. The 85 serves as a dedicated portrait lens, the 100 macro as a dual purpose lens. Now it spends a lot of time sitting in the closet.

If you sell your 100 f2 you could get the 85 and keep some change.

The 100L I'm sure is a wonderful lens. Too bad I don't shoot enough macro stuff to justify owning it. And I'm very happy with my non L when it does get used.

 

[Tanja]

the 85mm f1.8 is no option.
as i wrote i had it and the purple fringing was annoying.
and the 15mm would not really make much of a difference.


the 135mm f2.0 on the other side, that could be an option.
but not immediately.
i can´t justify spending another 600 euro + what i get for the EF 100 f2.

but in the long run...

 

[sunnyVan]

the 85mm f1.8 is no option.
as i wrote i had it and the purple fringing was annoying.
and the 15mm would not really make much of a difference.


the 135mm f2.0 on the other side, that could be an option.
but not immediately.
i can´t justify spending another 600 euro + what i get for the EF 100 f2.

but in the long run...

Any lens wide open produces color fringing. Even my 135L does. I shoot people mainly so the fringing is less noticeable. You'll see it when you shoot shiny objects. The 135L appears to produce less fringing than 100 and 85 probably because of compression effect only. It's still there if you look for it. I'm not trying to convince you to get the 85, but I'm just brainstorming with you here.

Your two 100mm lenses would give you the same perspective, the same look. So worth it or not is your call.