- Status
The only advantage the 100/2.0 has over the 100/2.8L IS Macro is size. The macro is quite a bit longer...
For portaiture... we hardly ever actually shoot at f/2.0
Formally, something more like f/5.6 or a half stop more... to get eyes and ears both in focus - which also brings the nose into focus.
However, if you're really looking for selective focus... yes, shooting at f/2.0 or with the macro f/2.8 is up to you.
You'll never, notice the difference in DOF between 100/2.0 and 100/2.8. You'd have to sit there and A-B compare over again to see any appreciable difference. You'll like the 100/2.0 for its size, but really.... in dim light, I'd take the 100/2.8L with its IS any day. And thats exactly what I did!
IQ is beyond fantastically excellent on both lenses... if the ergonomics don't matter all that much... the 100/2.0 will stay home.
For portaiture... we hardly ever actually shoot at f/2.0
Formally, something more like f/5.6 or a half stop more... to get eyes and ears both in focus - which also brings the nose into focus.
However, if you're really looking for selective focus... yes, shooting at f/2.0 or with the macro f/2.8 is up to you.
You'll never, notice the difference in DOF between 100/2.0 and 100/2.8. You'd have to sit there and A-B compare over again to see any appreciable difference. You'll like the 100/2.0 for its size, but really.... in dim light, I'd take the 100/2.8L with its IS any day. And thats exactly what I did!
IQ is beyond fantastically excellent on both lenses... if the ergonomics don't matter all that much... the 100/2.0 will stay home.
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx
Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
My 100 2.0 has been sitting unused for a long time, since I have the 85 1.8 and the 135L. But last weekend I found a great use for it:
(this was at F/2.8 and 1/160, hand held, 5D3)
It's a great lens for shooting hood ornaments at a classic car show! LOL
There are a few more shots from the Concours d'Elegance on my blog if anyone is interested: http://www.beyondboudoirphoto.com/blog
(this was at F/2.8 and 1/160, hand held, 5D3)
It's a great lens for shooting hood ornaments at a classic car show! LOL
There are a few more shots from the Concours d'Elegance on my blog if anyone is interested: http://www.beyondboudoirphoto.com/blog
Upvote
0
Had the 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 and 135mm f2 for crop and full frame. I never got the hang of the 85mm probably because I started off with the 50mm for portraits and use the 100mm and 135mm for indoor sports. I did experience the purple fringing and thought it was a shame since the lens was so sharp. I must've bought and sold the 85mm 3x. Finally I just decided to do without. I like the 100m, fast AF and sharp. Of course, the 135mm gets more use.
Upvote
0
For what it is worth, the 100mm f/2.8L was my favorite lens for a year. I used it even when the focal length didn't really match the situation. It is a great lens. I had the 100mm f/2 but I never used it... which is to say I never used it... ever... not even once.
But when I got my 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii, it was on par with the 100mm f/2.8L so I sold the macro lens and I gave up all of the macro functionality... though I didn't really use it that much for macro.
I'd sell it... even though it would be hard... that money can either defray the cost of the upgrade or help fund another lens. I try not to have too much redundancy in my gear, but it is difficult.
But when I got my 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii, it was on par with the 100mm f/2.8L so I sold the macro lens and I gave up all of the macro functionality... though I didn't really use it that much for macro.
I'd sell it... even though it would be hard... that money can either defray the cost of the upgrade or help fund another lens. I try not to have too much redundancy in my gear, but it is difficult.
Upvote
0
why bother - there appear to be real but marginal differences between the two lenses. Why not just keep the
100f2.0 and add the 135L? OK, it's a few bucks more but it does have real admirers 'cause it's one hell of a
lens.
100f2.0 and add the 135L? OK, it's a few bucks more but it does have real admirers 'cause it's one hell of a
lens.
Upvote
0
hamada said: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.
Depends which copies you're testing - see first chart in link below - but it really comes down to 'they're both plenty sharp':
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation
Upvote
0
hamada said:mb66energy said:
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.
A late reply but now it's there
APS-C comparison between both (50D) (1st is NON IS version)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/488-canon_100_28_50d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/461-canon_100_28is_50d?start=1
FF comparison (5D mk ii)
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1
The differences are marginal - but the NON IS shows much lower CAs and a better uniformity of sharpness which is important to me because I like compositions where sharpness is needed at borders/in corners @ f/2.8 or similar.
As Hesbehindyou remarked - sample variations play an additional role.
Upvote
0
It depends what you want to do with it. I seldom photograph things that are moving around fast (and if I did I would probably use my 135L instead anyway), so the fact that the 100L isn't always very fast doesn't matter to me and the IS is very useful as light goes down when I'm not taking real macro photos (I seldom do that, either). A huge advantage to me of the L is its obviously shorter MFD - I may not want to take a lot of macro photos, but I often want to get close enough to take portraits of small things - flowers, kitten faces, etc. - and the three feet/one meter of the 100 f/2 often isn't close enough for me. Never having used the 100 f/2 I can't comment on its bokeh, but it's pretty wonderful on the 100L and, since you can get closer, you can get more blur in the background.
I had hoped to find comparisons on-line of 100 f/2 vs 100L with photos, but perhaps I didn't look long or carefully enough. But I did find this, which compares 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 & 135 L which, if nothing else, might nudge you towards the 135L at some point (or not):
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=222419
As for the slow focusing of the L, well, it's all relative. Provided you stay within a narrowish range, it can be near-instantaneous, but if you switch from, say, a subject that's two feet away to one that's 20 feet away, it probably won't be and presumably (I've not tried) won't be fast enough for fast-moving sport where the distances keep changing significantly. The only time it's given me a problem, with considerable hunting, was in photographing some glass sculptures (hard to photograph in the best of circumstances) in a field late at night where the only source of light was the dim internal light in each sculpture. Manual override proved useful then (using the focus limiting switch would doubtless help too; I keep forgetting to use it). I've no idea of the f2 would have done any better.
I had hoped to find comparisons on-line of 100 f/2 vs 100L with photos, but perhaps I didn't look long or carefully enough. But I did find this, which compares 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 & 135 L which, if nothing else, might nudge you towards the 135L at some point (or not):
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=222419
As for the slow focusing of the L, well, it's all relative. Provided you stay within a narrowish range, it can be near-instantaneous, but if you switch from, say, a subject that's two feet away to one that's 20 feet away, it probably won't be and presumably (I've not tried) won't be fast enough for fast-moving sport where the distances keep changing significantly. The only time it's given me a problem, with considerable hunting, was in photographing some glass sculptures (hard to photograph in the best of circumstances) in a field late at night where the only source of light was the dim internal light in each sculpture. Manual override proved useful then (using the focus limiting switch would doubtless help too; I keep forgetting to use it). I've no idea of the f2 would have done any better.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
