Just got my EF 100/2.8L macro IS USM

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

At least part of this is probably due to the greater travel of the macro. The non-is is the same: Af is snappy if you're close, but it takes a little longer to find focus from way off... it has a long way to go, after all.

[sulla]

Hi!


That is exactly my observation.


My experience with AF is that it is very fast when comparing with a non-macro lens covering an identical focusing range, i.e. a swing from i.e. 1m to infinity. Then the EF 100 IS macro is very fast.


It takes the macro quite long, however, to perform a swing from 0.3 to 0.5 meter, i.e. for focussing in the macro-area. The USM motors need to move the lens groups relatively far to change the point of focus over the first 0.2m. The focus limiter swith really makes sense.


When comparing a full AF-swing from full counter-clockwise to full clockwise, i.e. the macro has to change from 0.3m to infinity and the non-macro from 0.5m to infinity, the macro is hopelessly slow, of course. But that is comparing apples with bananas, isn't it?

[chrisc]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.52/IMG_5F00_0343_2D00_50_2D00_10.jpg[/img]

[2slo]

just got myEF 100/2.8L macro, snapped this free hand. pretty nifty. amazing lens.
<div>[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.33.03/pen.jpg[/img]</div>

[2slo]

think this is called a 100% crop?


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.33.03/crop.jpg[/img]

[jcmeza_21]

I'd like to see some people shots. pa pa pa pleeeease...

[wickerprints]

I'd like to see some people shots. pa pa pa pleeeease...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Are you channeling Lady Gaga or something? []

[jcmeza_21]

I guess I do sound like lady gaga. Thanks Wickerprints.

[2slo]

ok, I'm dead if my wife knows I didn't delete her picture. the dog didn't care. []


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.33.03/macro_2D00_042.jpg[/img]





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.33.03/macro_2D00_076.jpg[/img]

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks toShutterbugJohan for his reply in the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro Review thread, but I thought I'd repost this here, as his was the only response.


I'm looking to get into macro, but I'm in something of a quandary - going price for the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro is $1050. For pretty much the same amount, I can get the100mm 2.8 non-IS macro<span>andthe MR-14EX ring lite. So, how much macro photography is flash-assisted, and for the proportion that is, is a ring lite necessary, or can I get by with a Speedlite, perhaps with an off-camera cord?


I almost picked up the non-IS version today, but what held me back was a comment in a 70-200mm comparison thread, to the effect that it's better to go for the high-end model because one would always regret not getting the higher-end lens.


Other considerations are that I don't have a strong desire to use the 100mm macro as a portrait lens as I have the 85mm f/1.8. Also, regarding the ring lite, I've read that the 'flat' lighting is sometimes not ideal for creative shots, and I may be better off with diffused light (small softbox) from my 430EX II on a flash bracket.


Thoughts from any and all will be appreciated!