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
Originally Posted by Shea Design
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 & 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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote