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

[scalesusa]

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.

[btaylor]

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.

[btaylor]

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!

[scalesusa]

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.

[btaylor]

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.