MACRO - Do I need the 100mm f/2.8L or not?

Hello Canoneers,


I'm thinking about adding to my line up of lenses and was considering delving into macro photography. I have a few L lenses now and have taken some "close-up" shots in the garden etc.. but wasn't sure what I'm missing by not having a Macro lense per se.


Will I see a big difference in these type of shots if I use a dedicated macro lense? if so...how big a difference? Do I shoot for the 100mm f/2.8L IS or the non IS 100mm f/2.8 which isn't a beloved "L" lense?


Any suggestions after seeing what I have now? Can I get decent enough macro shots with my lenses below?....or would I be "wowed" by this "L Macro"? IfI can get "good enough" macro for one of these lenses below....then I was just going to keep saving for my 300mm 2.8L. Shall I keep saving?


Cheers, Jeff


I have the following now:


16-35mm 2.8L II


24-70mm 2.8L


70-200mm 2.8L IS ver. 1 (took some neat closeups with this one)


135mm 2L


85mm 1.2L


50mm 1.4


70-300mm f4-5.6

Hey Jeff,


for close-ups of flowers Iwould say you have a pretty fine lens-collection. In my opinion you should buy the macro only to shoot mainly at smaller objects than flowers. Like beetles and bugs etc etc. I don't know which lens in your collection gives you the maximum magnification, but I'm sure it will do for flowerclose-ups and larger bugs like butterflies etc.


It is however a magnificent lens (I own the 100mm non IS) and you might discover a whole new world to take pictures off. But for just some close-ups, I would keep going as you are and save up for the 300mm f2.8 which has probably much more use for you?


Jan

For an inexpensive option, with your 70-200mm you can add a[url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx]500D Close-up Lens[/url]lens and get to ~0.5x magnification - that's more than adequate for 'garden' close-ups, at the expense of some corner softness (and restricted flexibility in working distance).


The main difference you'll notice with a dedicated macro lens is the ability focus all the way from infinity right up to 1:1 magnification - so, if you want to get [i]really[/i] close, a macro lens is the way to go.


Optically, there's essentially no difference between the non-IS and L versions of the Canon 100mm Macro. I have theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS - the IS is moderately useful for macro shooting (especially in the 1:2-1:3 range) in good light; closer or dimmer, and the small aperture required for sufficient DOF means a tripod is required and IS isn't needed. If you'd be using it for general shooting/portraits, IS would be helpful - but you have other lenses that are more suited to those uses. On the other hand, if you want to go shoot macro in the rain (and you have a sealed body), you'd want the weather-sealed L macro.

I have a similar array of lenses. I also had a 100mm F2.8 lens. I found it hard to handhold at close distances (Nor really Macro's) and seldom got more than 1 of 5 sharp images, so I sold it. For the most part, I got the best results with my 24-105mm IS lens, but the 135mmL was also good. I have but hate to use extension tubes, since too much setup is required, including a tripod in most cases. A 1.4 or 2X extender works better, but is still a bit klutzy.


I was pretty pessisimistic about the new 100mmL, even after reading about how many people liked it. I had recently sold my 40D and bought a used 1D MK III, so that left me with a 17-55mm lens that I reluctantly sold. I used the proceeds to buy a 100mmL, and suddenly found that closeups of flowers were easy to take handheld, even at 1/10 sec shutter speeds. This astounded me, after my previous experience.


So now, the 100mm L will be with me all the time, and is getting use as a all around telephoto on my 5d MK II as well as the 1D MK III.

Another inexpensive option would be extension tubes. I have the Kenko tubes (12mm, 20mm and 36mm if I remember correctly). AF still works but I find it hard to use for macro anyway and the IQ is good. I use them on my 50mm f/1.8 II and the 70-200mm f/4L IS with good results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scalesusa

I have but hate to use extension tubes, since too much setup is required, including a tripod in most cases.

---

Missed this bit - I don't have any issues with setupusing extension tubes. I normally just put the 20mm tube on and go for gold!

The 24-70 should get you really nice flower shots. It's minimum focus of 15" and max magnification of .29 are pretty good for a non-macro lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

The 24-70 should get you really nice flower shots. It's minimum focus of 15" and max magnification of .29 are pretty good for a non-macro lens.

---

So conclusion in my eyes: if you've got a better reason to buy a 300mm f2.8 and need to save money for it, go with that and deal with the flowers and close-ups with the amazing lens-collection that you already have!


Jan

Good for you. I'm not talented enough to take a extreme closeup with extension tubes handheld at 1/10th second and get a sharp image. Even at fast shutter speeds, I move too much and get motion blur or out offocus shots, so I have to use a tripod and focusing rail. Then select the correct tube length to get the composition I want. This can, of course be done. My point is that I was suprised at how easy the new 100L is to use for what used to be a setup that was slow and clunky.


The price is steep, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scalesusa

The price is steep, of course.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

You're right it is. I personally couldn't justify purchasing a dedicated macro lens as it's not really my main interest with photography. Extension tubes are the cheap alternative and I do doubt they give the same results as a macro lens (otherwise everybody would use them!).


I agree also that it can be difficult to keep objects in focus with such a narrow depth of field. I often have to brace myself against a tree or some other solid structure, other times I use a tripod and it certainly can be a pain without a focusing rail.

Love the 100mm f/2.8! It is the best lens I own to show off the pixel depth of the 5DmkII, very sharp and plenty fast. AND... now that some folks just got to have the IS version, you can pick them up used in great (even mint) condition for less than $400 (most markets). Negotiate for the hood and and filters and you are looking at a substantial savings. It is not all about the L series.


-Shea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea Design

It is not all about the L series.

---

Hey - it's called <span style="color: red;"]Lens <span style="color: red;"]Lust for a reason... [:P]

Personally, I find the 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM very similar to the 135 f/2 for most things... great bokeh, fast etc... However for Macro you usually need lots of light and IS HELPS BIGTIME... so I'd suggest spending a grand on the 100 L... I mean you have some GREAT lenses in your collection - I think you can go for the new one. I have an EF-S 60mm Macro for a third the price and it's pretty nice! No IS though, but I hear they're making an IS version real soon. I HAVE used the 100mm L recently (week rental) and find it's easier with the longer length and the IS. The 135 f/2 or the 50 f/1.4 with some extension tubes on there could work wonders for you too though. I have the Kenko 3pc set. I had to REALLY SEARCH to find the ones that are compatible with EF-S also... you may or may not care about that. If you do want the EF-S verison, you might only find one or two places that carry them - but worth it if you need it or want it. The 16-35, oddly, has a very close minimal focus distance. Can't remember if you can use that with extension tubes or not but if so, that'd be an option too. The 70-200 with tubes is nice! as is teh 24-105 f/4 L with tubes, but that's not on your list. It's a bit slow I know ;)

Guys I agree with all of you about the amazing qualities of the macro lens, but read the original post again before you say something...


As he stated his "problem": real macrophotography isn't his intention. He asks if a real macro lens would make a big difference to the close-ups he makes and if it's worth buying such a dedicated lens at the expense of saving and buying a 300mm f2.8 which he might need more for other reasons. If I look at his name I assume he makes money with his photos, so you should have that in mind as well.


Jan

From his site:





<span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI'; font-size: large;"]OUR SERVICES...

• <span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI';"]Live Action Photography
  
• <span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI';"]Team &amp; Individual Portraits

• <span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI';"]If you see a "We Click, You Pick" photographer at your event, you can expect to see pictures in our galleriesusuallywithin 48 hours.

<span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"]For those cases I would personally recommend a 300mm f2.8 over a 100mm macro.


Jan
<div><span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"]
</div>

Hey there.....thanx for bringing this post back....


Sheiky...you're right....I definitely don't need a dedicated macro lense for the business....andI do need a 300mm 2.8.


However....I do like to "mess around" for my own personal needs and was wondering about macro capabilities of my current lineup relative to this 100mm 2.8L.


For instance...would it not be even close to try macro with my current stuff given the wow factor of this 100mm.....or do I get the 80 for the 20 per se?


I'm gonna get the 300mm 2,8 eventually....but was wondering what macro "wow factor" I may be missing along the way without a dedicated macro lense.


I'm making this clear as mud aren't I?


Thanx for your time....all of you!


Cheers,


Jeff

I know exactly what you are saying (I think). There is the objective side: "what do I need for the business", and then there is the fun side. In my opinion, taking macro shots at 1x, 2x, and beyond is great fun.


Basically, the macro lens will just allow you to get closer. If this is what you want to do, then yes, the difference between the macro (either IS or non-IS) is like night and day compared to your 70-200 f/2.8 IS (which I also use for closeups of flowers and butterflies).


But I agree with those who say that if you're just doing moderate closeups of flowers, the macro won't be much of an improvement. The question really is, do you want to take closer closeups than you already do?


As for IS vs non-IS (and that is the main difference, I wouldn't make a big deal over other differences between these lenses, though I believe the IS has a slight iq improvement), again the answer is "it depends". Some people feel that a flash is mandatory for macro work, and these people feel that there is no point to IS in a macro lens. But if you're planning to take pictures hand held using available light then no question- get the IS. I should add that taking macro pictures this way, even with IS, is a very tricky business, because there just never seems to be enough light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

I should add that taking macro pictures this way, even with IS, is a very tricky business, because there just never seems to be enough light.

---

I would second that notion. Aside from novelty very shallow depth of field stuff, i find tht with macro I'm almost always at at least f/11. Sometimes f/8 at the most, andwhen you're close you'll only get a sliver. Even if you're stable, getting something to keep still outdoors for a longerexposure can be a hassle. If it's not direct sunlight, and you have the time to set up, a tripod and a flash rig makes things a lot easier as far as getting the shot you want. Plus, with a flash setup, you have the option to manipulate the light, which can be quite rewarding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Basically, the macro lens will just allow you to get closer. If this is what you want to do, then yes, the difference between the macro (either IS or non-IS) is like night and day compared to your 70-200 f/2.8 IS (which I also use for closeups of flowers and butterflies).


But if you're planning to take pictures hand held using available light then no question- get the IS. I should add that taking macro pictures this way, even with IS, is a very tricky business, because there just never seems to be enough light.

---

Bingo. It illustrate what Jon's saying, take a look at the pics below (all shot with theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM). The magnification of the gerbera daisy on the left could easily be achieved with your 70-200 (maybe with a 500D close-up lens mounted on it). The image of the tiny flower on the right could only be captured with a macro lens (for size comparison, the petals in the background of the tiny flower are the same gerbera daisy pictured on the left).


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Gerbera.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/GerberaPetal.jpg[/img]


Both of these were in room light (75W ceiling lamp), and both taken tripod mounted at f/11 and ISO 200. Because of the apparent loss of light as you approach 1:1 magnification, the shot on the right was a 15s exposure - no way to get that shot without a tripod. But, the wider shot on the left, which was a 4s exposure,could have been done handheld by bumping the ISO up to 1600 and sacrificing DoF by dropping to f/4. Just to show that it can be done, the one below was a handheld shot elsewhere in the same bouquet (f/2.8, 1/30s, ISO 800).


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/IMG_5F00_3330.jpg[/img]


Bottom line, theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM is a really fun lens to shoot with!

While I don't own the 100mm 2.8 USM Macro I have constant and immediate access to one, so I can use it whenever I want. It takes incredibly sharp pictures.


The only reason I'd step up to the new L version is if you don't have a fairly steady hand. The 100mm I use is my girlfriends and she often hands me her camera when using it because I have a much steadier hand... which makes me a little little leery to buy the new one. Someone like her could really use it. Someone like me? I'm sure it would HELP, but is it worth $600 (2.5x) more than the old version?


Only you can answer that question for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Aside from novelty very shallow depth of field stuff, i find tht with macro I'm almost always at at least f/11.

---

And- as you probably know, Colin- it's worse than that. At 1:1, f/11 becomes an effective f/22 when it comes to light gathering.

I didn't know, in fact, other than something about a bellows effect causing you to get screwed on the light.


My macro flashes are just my regular flashes. Between a couple of diffusing umbrellas, they seem to work well. At that point, I just go into manual mode, and try to do what I can metering wise with the histogram, and I know the histogram is wrong for raw, but.... I muddle by. Light gathering with an effective f/22, wow. Pretty harsh. Somebody should be punished! Oh, wait, that's US!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weclickyoupick.com

Hey there.....thanx for bringing this post back....

---

No problem [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weclickyoupick.com

For instance...would it not be even close to try macro with my current stuff given the wow factor of this 100mm.....or do I get the 80 for the 20 per se?


I'm gonna get the 300mm 2,8 eventually....but was wondering what macro "wow factor" I may be missing along the way without a dedicated macro lense.

---

Well just my idea: you probably won't use the 100mm for other purposes than real macro like 1:2-1:1. The advantage of the IS system is a lot smaller in those cases and you probably want to use a tripod or flash anyways. So thinking of that I wouldn't see why you would pay more for IS system over the IS-less 100mm macro if you can't take the full advantage of it.


The macro lens could also be used for other occasions like portraits, but you've got good other lenses for that. And I heard the 300mm 2.8 is also a killer-portraitlens [A]


For the close-ups of flowers your lens collection is sufficient, you don't really NEED a very expensive macro L-lens for that. The only question remaining is the fact that you need or would love the real macroexperience. I can't say that for you. I guess the best way to find out is just to try the 100mm macro out in a local store and see for yourself [;)]


I know I use the IS-less 100mm macro lens and for real macro capabilities I don't miss the IS, I use flash anyway, so it wouldn't really matter. I know I coulnd't justify the extra money for the new L-macro lens myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weclickyoupick.com

I'm making this clear as mud aren't I?

---

I hope I didn't this way [:P]


Jan

You guys rock!....and so does this site!


I think I'll save for the 300 2.8 and see along the way if I feel I'm deficient in macro capabilities then I'll decide. Right now....I'm not taking macro shots....and may find that my macro experience would only be a weekend....in which case it would be silly to spend the extra coin for this macro lense. If I were to go with a macro....I probably couldn't resist the "L" as I seem to have a dangerous addiction.....and a costly one.


Cheers,


Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weclickyoupick.com

If I were to go with a macro....I probably couldn't resist the "L" as I seem to have a dangerous addiction.....and a costly one.

---

Totally understandable situation [:P]


Good luck Jeff!