Does anybody know when the 100mm macro lenses will be in? Holy crap I want one before the end of the month!!

[HiFiGuy1]

I have the 100mm f/2.8 macro on my list, too. I don't think handholdability is an issue for me. I've used my 28-135 for "macro-type" shots and had good success with it at 135mm and wide open. Also, the close focus distance of the 100mmshould make tight shots easy to accomplish. Don't forget that the same framing on the same camera with the 100 can be accomplished from a greater distance. The 100 is more versatile if you ever get a chance to buy a FF body, too.


Between the two, I would definitely get the 100 over the 60. Don't forget, the 100 makes an outstanding, sharp portrait lens as well.

[LoneSierra]

Yeah, I've been weighing the options pretty heavily, and I'm just not sure. The 28-135 also has a 3ish stop IS. The 100 has nothing. I know it's fast, but when I was hand holding some macro shots the other day with it, I wasn't getting good results. It might just be the light I had to work with, but it was tough getting those close shots without a tripod.





It definitely is a great portrait lens, that's for sure, and if I make the FF plunge down the road it would work there too...I'm just not sure. I'm more attracted to the more hand holdable 60. I haven't made up my mind QUITE yet but I think I'm still going that direction.


Thanks for the input!

[LoneSierra]

Oh and another thing. One of my next lenses is going to be the 70-200m 2.8 IS....So as far as portraits go, I'll have that eventually, so I'll have a 100mm 2.8 for doing portraits and what not when I get that.

[LoneSierra]

After looking at shots taking with the 100....haha it's very attractive. I'm still not sure! But, one thing, how does he get the black background on some of his macro pics? Is he using the ole, black backdrop? Kinda tough to keep that bug still to put that into place. Or could that be just a photoshop thing? Doesn't look like it.