Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

[PavelR]

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...)

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"?

I used it several times in portrait shooting occasions and the images are visibly softer comparing it with the result from 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 (all at F 2.8 [I usually use F 2.0-2.8]), thus I asked the question, whether my copy of 100L is not under the average... (Other than portrait images with focus distance about 15-20 meters are quite OK.) (+ in direct comparison with Nikon 105 VR images taken with my 100L looks pretty softer too - especially till F4 of contrasty jewelry with small details...)

 

[Don Haines]

I had borrowed the L and the non L version of the lens and went walkabout to try them out. With the non L version I was trying to take butterfly pictures in flight..... with the L version I did.... and holy C**P!!! were they sharp!!!!!!

 

[alejandrormz]

How does the upcoming Tamron 90mm f/2.8 VC lens compare to this one?

Any thoughts?

 

[gilmorephoto]

LOVE THE 100mm L!

Crazy sharp. Perfect for both portrait and macro. +1.

 

[Ew]

Putting IS aside, ive been happy with the 100/2 - but have always had the "wondering" nag.

Anyone own(ed) both and could shed some light on this?? T.I.A.

 

[brad-man]

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...)

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"?

I used it several times in portrait shooting occasions and the images are visibly softer comparing it with the result from 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 (all at F 2.8 [I usually use F 2.0-2.8]), thus I asked the question, whether my copy of 100L is not under the average... (Other than portrait images with focus distance about 15-20 meters are quite OK.) (+ in direct comparison with Nikon 105 VR images taken with my 100L looks pretty softer too - especially till F4 of contrasty jewelry with small details...)

I did a great deal of research before picking up this lens a year ago, and yours is the first comment I have ever seen that included the word soft. This lens is wicked sharp whether used for macro or telephoto. If you have already micro-adjusted it to your camera, then you should certainly send it back to Canon to be calibrated as you are missing out on a wonderful piece of glass...

 

[kubelik]

I'm with brad-man, "soft" would be the absolute last word I use to describe the 100 f/2.8 L ... bitingly sharp is more like it. you should definitely get that checked out by Canon.

 

[Biggles]

I am slowly saving up for this lens after trying a friend's copy for a month - I was amazed at how rich the colours were compared to my 60mm macro. Plus the IS is invaluable since I like handheld macro.

One alternative however, would be to put the money towards a 70-200mm IS, probably the f4, to gain the upgraded benefit of that lens for telephoto, plus buy a 500D close-up filter to turn it into a macro. I have seen some stunning photos taken with that setup, since that lens is very very good too. Does anybody have experience with that setup to comment on how it would compare overall with the 100L for macro? I would guess it is less flexible somehow, but I don't know in what way.

 

[infared]

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...)

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"?

I used it several times in portrait shooting occasions and the images are visibly softer comparing it with the result from 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 (all at F 2.8 [I usually use F 2.0-2.8]), thus I asked the question, whether my copy of 100L is not under the average... (Other than portrait images with focus distance about 15-20 meters are quite OK.) (+ in direct comparison with Nikon 105 VR images taken with my 100L looks pretty softer too - especially till F4 of contrasty jewelry with small details...)

I did a great deal of research before picking up this lens a year ago, and yours is the first comment I have ever seen that included the word soft. This lens is wicked sharp whether used for macro or telephoto. If you have already micro-adjusted it to your camera, then you should certainly send it back to Canon to be calibrated as you are missing out on a wonderful piece of glass...

Perhaps you got a bad copy...Mine is sharp as a tack.

 

[PavelR]

Thank you, brad-man and infared, for the information.

 

[Loswr]

I'm with brad-man, "soft" would be the absolute last word I use to describe the 100 f/2.8 L ... bitingly sharp is more like it. you should definitely get that checked out by Canon.

+1 - it's wickedly sharp.

 

[EchoLocation]

While I appreciate the reviews, it seems like this is an absolute no brainer.
Everyone knows this lens is awesome... It's basically a fact at this point.
It's like having an article about how Scarlett Johansson is hot, or if Thailand has nice beaches.....
The most interesting thing I learned from this review is that the 100L was Neuro's first L lens! WOW, I guess APS-C cameras are the gateway drug of the camera world as you are apparently fully addicted to the hard stuff(Pro series bodies and White Lenses.)
Neuro, can I ask what you were interested in before you started stockpiling lenses and camera gear?
Cheers!
Looking forward to some more less obvious reviews in the future

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, can I ask what you were interested in before you started stockpiling lenses and camera gear?

Saving money.

Seriously, I shot film long ago, developed lots of Tmax and printed back when burning and dodging meant wands and masks under an enlarger. Then it was film P&S, then digital P&S, then I had a child, and once she started moving the P&S just couldn't keep up. So that re-ignited my hobby...only now my income is more conducive. It was a little eye opening to think that the 600 II cost more than my gross income for a whole year as a grad student...

 

[EchoLocation]

I'm just enjoying thinking of Neuro using the 600 II as a lens for family shots......
"Okay kids, you stand on this side of the Grand Canyon, I'll be back at home on CR taking family portraits of you from the window. Smile!"

 

[tnargs]

"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.

That is a very poorly worded comment.

What it should have said is,

"Hybrid is every bit as useful as conventional IS in a myriad of circumstances, possibly even slightly better, but additionally it is useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances, where conventional IS loses about half to 3/4 of its effectiveness".

That's better.

 

[tnargs]

Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?

Does your 100L have IS?

 

[RLPhoto]

"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.

That is a very poorly worded comment.

What it should have said is,

"Hybrid is every bit as useful as conventional IS in a myriad of circumstances, possibly even slightly better, but additionally it is useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances, where conventional IS loses about half to 3/4 of its effectiveness".

That's better.

I love quotes taken out of context. :

 

[AshtonNekolah]

one of my best tele's compare to the 135L the 135 bokeh is more buttery due to its 2/f but the 100mm rocks tops in its class of 2.8 and for macro its nothing but sharp all the way. one of the sharpest macro L glass out there. im happy to own this gem.

 

[Dylan777]

I have never owned nor tried a macro lens before, but after reading this review and comments from CR members........dam I want one

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It makes me laugh when reviewers of the newer lenses state that they feel plasticy compared to older lenses. Canon have recently started using Aluminium in their casing designs and once coated, this metal doesn't feel cold to touch like the older metal formulas employed. So most people think that the casing for this lens is made from engineering plastic, when it's mostly made from a far better material. The same is true for sections of the new 24-70IIL and 8-16L fisheye.