Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
This is my next planned lens to get... While my camera fund is spent getting the 5D3 recently, this is definitely next on my list. I had the original 100mm Canon Macro and sold it to fund the 100-400, but really want the IS on it.
Plus the 100mm now becomes well 100mm for me, when before it was ~160mm..
Anybody compare this to the new sigma 150 f2.8 OS?
Plus the 100mm now becomes well 100mm for me, when before it was ~160mm..
Anybody compare this to the new sigma 150 f2.8 OS?
Upvote
0
K
kadosh32000
Guest
I love this lense, but I noticed it's a little noisy when focusing and not as fast as a I'd like when in low contrast situations. Not a biggie though. It's the sharpest lens I've had so far.
Canon 1DX
Canon 7D
50mm f1.4
17-40mm f4
70-200mm f2.8 IS
100mm macro f2.8
24-105mm f4
Canon 1DX
Canon 7D
50mm f1.4
17-40mm f4
70-200mm f2.8 IS
100mm macro f2.8
24-105mm f4
Upvote
0
Haha!
I've LITERALLY just ordered one of these! I'm talking an HOUR ago!
Couldn't wait before, now I'm rabid. ;D
I've LITERALLY just ordered one of these! I'm talking an HOUR ago!
Couldn't wait before, now I'm rabid. ;D
Upvote
0
I've got the 90mm Tamron Macro... If you can't afford the 100L, I've been pleased with the Tamron. It is a dedicated macro lens for me as I have the 135L if I want portraits. AF is decent, but I tend to do live view manual focus for macro anyway. It's very sharp. I'm sure it compares to the 100L in IQ.
Upvote
0
Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)
Upvote
0
I've owned the non-L version of the lens many, many years... wonder lens. I've never thought of upgrading to L because I couldn't imagine a sharper lens, and to me, the IS hold little value as nearly all macro must really be done on a tripod...
I'm curious about the difference the rounded aperture blades of the L makes - I can't say I've ever been bothered with the non-L's effect, but it would be interested to see an A - B comparison between the lenses that highlights this difference.
I'm curious about the difference the rounded aperture blades of the L makes - I can't say I've ever been bothered with the non-L's effect, but it would be interested to see an A - B comparison between the lenses that highlights this difference.
Upvote
0
Great review - I totally agree. A remarkable piece of engeneering.
I used this lens a lot... until i got my 85 1.2 II which is now mounted most of the time because the 100L is just a little too long for portraits on APS-C.
But still, my most favorite shots where taken with it.
I used this lens a lot... until i got my 85 1.2 II which is now mounted most of the time because the 100L is just a little too long for portraits on APS-C.
But still, my most favorite shots where taken with it.
Upvote
0
This lens is outstanding for macro, I just can't say enough good things this about it. The bokeh is outstandingly creamy. And wow is it sharp in macro and with close subjects. However it isn't as sharp as you get past 10 feet. I tried shooting people on a stage and some landscapes with this lens, and found it to only be about as sharp as the 24-105mm f/4L at the same aptreture and focal length.
While I have'd used them yet, I wouldn't be surprised if the 70-200 f/2.8L and 135 f/2L would be a little sharper for longer distance work.
However you have to ask just how much sharpness you really need, and for all my applications the 100mm f/2.8L is more than good enough even at longer focus distances.
While I have'd used them yet, I wouldn't be surprised if the 70-200 f/2.8L and 135 f/2L would be a little sharper for longer distance work.
However you have to ask just how much sharpness you really need, and for all my applications the 100mm f/2.8L is more than good enough even at longer focus distances.
Upvote
0
PavelR said:
I have them both and love them both, but I don't think I've ever made a direct comparison (I probably have a slight bias in favor of the 135 but I'm not sure I have anything to back it up). In what way(s) do you think the 135 is the "clear winner"?
Upvote
0
I use it on a 5DIII...I was hesitant to buy a $1000 (when I bought it) lens that was made of plastic...but I there is no looking back...It is one of the SHARPEST (if not THE sharpest) lenses I own..(check my list ...that is saying something)...Just like justin...every time I shoot something with it ...I put the images up on the screen and I am bowled over with the sharpness...
Great lens..oh yeah...hey ...it shoots macro too, I am told!?!?!?!?! LOL!
Great lens..oh yeah...hey ...it shoots macro too, I am told!?!?!?!?! LOL!
Upvote
0
Um, yes this is a great lens. Been out a couple years now. Why a review now? And if it has Hybrid IS, why doesn't Canon use Hybrid IS on all their IS lenses?
Upvote
0
PavelR said:
I own both as well. I would guess that the 135L is slightly sharper, but both produce stunning images with great bokeh. I use them for different things, with some overlap, and would be very hard pressed to part with either of them.
Upvote
0
As for hybrid IS, Its really only useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances. Perfect for macro lenses
Thank you for educating me on that feature.
Thank you for educating me on that feature.
Upvote
0
- Status
