Just got my EF 100/2.8L macro IS USM

[Alan KE]

yeah agreed

[wickerprints]

Nope, not a razor blade. [A]


But yes it is made of metal! []

[Joel Eade]

can opener

[Jon Ruyle]

a lens?

[wickerprints]

a lens?

Jon wins! [] It's a closeup of the EF lens mount. I don't know what all the white specks are...dust, I suppose!


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/answer.jpg[/img]

[sulla]

Hi!





I just happen to also own the new EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM.


I have nothing but praise for it!





I used to own the non-L macro, i.e. the EF 100 f/2.8 macro USM before and I sold it for the new IS lens. My reason was this: My sister-in-law has a big spider in her garden. I discovered it and had to take some macro-shots from it with the non-IS macro. I didn't have a tripod and the minimum aperture I could get was was 9 @ 1/100s. I was happy until I looked at the shots on my computer a day later: I was not able to get both the body and the head of the spider in focus at the same time. I have some shots of the spider head in focus, and some with its body, but I have no shot of the whole spider being sharp. UNFORTUNATELY! I just was not able to achieve the necessary time/aperture settings necessary for this shot without a tripod!


The new IS system promises to achieve a 2-stop advantage handheld, i.e. I would have been able to get to f/18 with a longer exposure time which would have done the job!


This is the main reason that made me sell my non-IS macro and buy the IS version. Handheld macro. Because you don't always have a tripod at hands!





The new 4-stop IS feels great! The stabilisation is noticeably better than on my EF 24-105 which has a 3-stop IS. It works unbelievably well in the non-macro world. I cannot sufficiently comment on the effectiveness of the IS in the macro realm so
far, because I have not had enough time to thoroughly test it. The advantage of the lateral IS reduces to 2 stops, but this still is good. Looking through the viefinder reveals a nicely stable image, but I don't know how much the angular component and how much the lateral component contributes to the stability of the image. Lets assume that Canon knew why they invented a lateral stabilisation!





I did some test shots with the new macro, of course, but most were only uninteresting orchids... My main use so far has been portraits. The EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM is EXCELLENT for this use. The AF-system is ROCKET-FAST! Faster, by far, than my EF 24-105, and that is something. The fastest focusing lens I own. A pleasure to use! Also the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM is RAZOR-SHARP wide open! Perfect Bokeh, the ideal lens for portraits!





While it is true that a full focus-swing from .3m to inifinity takes some time (physically moving a lens group), when in portrait mode (limter set from 0.5m to infinity) a swing from 0.5m to infinity is extremely fast and extremely accurate on my 5D! For macro work on a tripod I usually operate the lens in MF mode. AF mode is not so useful for insects (bees, flies, dragonflies) approaching a flower, because the shot needs to be framed when the insect is NOT in place, so the AF has nothing to acquire. MF is the only option then. I focus to where I expect the bee to be and press the shutter when it is about to land.





Image quality of the old EF 100 f/2.8 USM has already been great, also for portraits wide open, but I have to say that the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM is noticeably better wide open! The fact that this lens costs less than twice what the non-IS costs makes this decision easy, if you can afford it. If not, the old EF 100 f/2.8 USM is also a hell-of-a-lens!





Let me comment on build quality: It is metal all over. Rock-solid. No plastic feeling at all, except, of course, for the huge rubber focusing ring. It feels great! I just wonder why Canon made the filter a 67mm one, because the front lens is small, not bigger than on the non-IS macro, which is a 58mm one. Perhaps they just did not want a step at the front lens. A Hama step-down converter should work well, I guess.





In summary: I have nothing but praise for the new EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM. It is well worth the upgrade from the already great EF 100 f/2.8 macro USM. And I am not paid by Canon, unfortunately.





kind regards,


Sulla

[ThomasJ]

Sulla,




While I also have the new IS Macro lens, I happened to see some apparent mistakes in your very enthusiastic review.





1) The EF 24-105 F4 IS L lens has 4-stop IS, not 3 as you mentioned. IMHO, the AF speed on the macro is quick, but I wouldn't say quicker than that of the 24-105.


The IS works OK in Macro realm, but of course, works more effectively at longer distances. It can give you an advantage but it won't do wonders.





2) The new IS Macro is indeed a little sharper wide open - but just a little. The biggest difference is IMHO in the corner sharpness. Check out Bryan's ISO charts to see yourself.





3) Build quality is definitely NOT metal all over. While the EF mount is indeed metal, the rest of the outside of the lens is plastic. High quality plastic, but not metal.





4) I dunno if the 400 to 500 bucks surcharge for the weather sealing and IS is worth it for everyone. IS is definitely lovely, but at 400 bucks, it is quite a step up. Image quality wise you won't see much change, the old one was pretty amazing for the money already.





I don't wanna talk bad about the Macro - I own it too and I love it.


I just don't want wrong claims wandering around the web. Happens too often!

[sulla]

Hi Thomas!


I took my information on the IS-rating of the EF 24-105 from Bryans review of the lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx) where he states it as a 3-stop one. Also, Canon itself rates it as being 3-stops (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...;modelid=11924). The EF 100 IS Macro viewfinder image feels considerably more steady (at f=infinity).


I just rechecked focus speed. I set both lenses manually to 0.5m and then focussed on a distant object, and I have to say the macro is quicker (the zoom zoomed to 100mm). I did the test on a EOS5D and also on my ancient EOS5. Other bodies may behave differently (the macro has a 2.8 aperture while the 24-105 is only f/4), after all the electronics is in the body. I have not done AI-SERVO tests yet, so I can't say which one is more accurate with moving objects, though.


I also went back and checked the barrel. I knocked on it. Plastic, indeed. Upon close inspection I found a moulding mark, plastic, for sure. All right. It IS plastic. Sorry for that.


I also tried to take a macro shot or two and to intentionally shake my camera horizontally only, and the image stabilizer could nicely correct for that. Not a great amount, but nicely. I performed the same horizontal shake with the 24-105, and could see a clear difference, in so far as this lenses IS does not, or hardly, correct for horizontal shake. The behaviour of the image in the viewfinder clearly "feels" differently with both stabilizers. The hybrid-IS definitely does something for macro shooting!


For portrait work, besides ISO-charts, I find the new IS macro sharper and more contrasty wide open at f/2.8 when compared to the non-IS macro. (But I don't have pictures of the same subject with both lenses side-by-side, I'm afraid.)


Despite it being plastic, I still have nothing but praise for it. I find it to be well worth the upgrade. If you always carry a tripod, the old non-IS EF 100 macro indeed is a wonderful lens.

[Fouad]

I dunno if the 400 to 500 bucks surcharge for the weather sealing and IS is worth it for everyone. IS is definitely lovely, but at 400 bucks, it is quite a step up. Image quality wise you won't see much change, the old one was pretty amazing for the money already.

I owned the non-IS Macro for a couple of years and found it's IQto be exceptional for portrait and macro work. For Macro work howeverit pretty much required a tripod. That was a major drawback as far as I am concerned.


I sold it and have had the IS version for several weeks now. The IQ is just as good if not better but the real advantage is the ability to take Macro shots hand held even in average light. At least for this particular lens and for this particular application [macro], the IS alone is worth the extra bucks as it makes the lens far more useful.

[ThomasJ]

Heya,


I need to apologize, my post might have sounded a little pissy. I'm really sorry for coming across weird. I also have the Macro and love it


Sulla: Very sorry on the IS-topic. I thought I somewhere read it's a three-stop IS. Sorry man!


On the AF - in portrait work the 24-105 seems to acquire focus more reliably than the Macro on the 5DII I have. Particularly when the image is way out of focus, the AF has a hard time finding it's way - times where the 24-105 is quick in getting there.


Hybrid-IS is great, yeah It can allow me to take pics in lighting conditions where the non-IS one wouldn't make it at all. IS buys me some stops of light. I can't tell yet how many stops at full magnification I am gaining though.


The new IS Macro definitely IS more contrasty.



Great lens all in all I'd also don't regret shelling out more $$$ for IS!