Discuss theCanonEF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens Review- Tell us what you think of theCanon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens.
Discuss theCanonEF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens Review- Tell us what you think of theCanon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens.
I currently own the EF 100mm f/2.8 lens and I'm thinking this will make a nice upgrade. I use the 100mm as a macro lens and I'm always battling the camera shakeat1:1, especially in lower light situations.Adding thenew image stabilization(for macro) to the lensshould make a great difference.
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who's made the switch already.
-Ben
I have to say, now that I've used the EF 100/2.8L macro IS for about a month and gotten used to handling it, I will say that the Hybrid IS is helpful but by no means a cure-all for 1:1 shooting. I posted my review of this lens a while back on this forum, and my opinion has pretty much remained unchanged.
Unlike Bryan, though, I can't say I get much better than 1/25s @ 1:1. In fact, I almost always try to stay at least 1/50s or faster handheld. The problem is that even if I can get good damping from IS, I still can't compose or focus very accurately because the macroscopic image shake is still present, and DOF is absolutely *tiny*. That is to say, I might get a sharp image, but framing it carefully and getting the right DOF is more luck-based.
The advantage to the Hybrid IS, though, is that I can usually get one more stop of light which means I can shoot with a smaller aperture and squeeze out more DOF. But here's the thing: I am really beginning to realize that I need a macro lighting solution of some sort, whether it's a ring light, twin light, or some home-grown contraption. I can't shoot 1:1 @ f/2.8 @ 1/50s @ ISO 1250 and hope to get something useful.
All that said, I did have a chance to use the 100/2.8L as a portrait lens. And wow. I mean, really. WOW. This lens is freaking awesome as a portrait lens, so much so that I may have to sell my EF 85/1.8 and upgrade to the 85/1.2L II just because 90% of the reason for my owning the 85/1.8 is now taken over by the 100/2.8L. The latter is sharper wide open, has more attractive bokeh, is more contrasty, and shows less longitudinal chromatic aberration. Don't get me wrong, the 85/1.8 is a great lens, and the 85/1.2L II is insanely expensive and heavy. I would just like to have one lens faster than f/2.
One thing about my copy of the 100/2.8L. Focus is very accurate with this lens. That's not to say AF doesn't hunt--it does--but what I mean is that when the camera locks focus, it really is focused, and this is true regardless of subject distance. That's not my experience with some of my other lenses, the EF 70-200/2.8L IS being one of them.
Okay. I'm drooling now for this lens not to mention I was aready drooling for the previous lens (100mm f2.8 Non-IS). []
I like the new lens! Although I must be honest, even if I did have the moeny, I wouldn't trade my "old" 100mm macro for it. I don't think I will be a lot more satisfied with this new lens. The Is is really a good feature, but since I use flash like 9/10 times, I don't really see the real benefits for macro. For other purposes then macro, the IS is certainly a good feature to have. My opinion: a great lens, but not really a major step forward on the earlier version.
I wouldn't upgrade my "old" 100/2.8 Macro to this newer one--180L IS would be much better. FWIW, I have gotten sharp results handholding my "old" 100/2.8 Macro at 1/13 sec. Not frequently, though. []
This lens is probably in my very near future. I have a jewelry designer for a client now and I think this will be a necessity for shooting this type of stuff.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.52/IMG_5F00_0343_2D00_50_2D00_10.jpg[/img]
Great review - thanks, Bryan!
I'm looking to get into macro, but now I'm in something of a quandary - going price for the 100mm 2.8L IS macro is $1050. For pretty much the same amount, I can get the100mm 2.8 non-IS macro the 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?
A secondary quandary was partially suggested by wickerprints - how much duplication will this lens mean for the 85mm 1.8 lens in my kit (I'm shooting with a 1.6 crop body)? I agree in principle that I'd like to keep a sub-f/2 lens handy, but I'd rather not have unused glass lying around...
Thoughts from any and all will be appreciated!
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Welcome to the forum! I would suggest the 100mm non-IS and the ringlite. It will provide more flexibility than the 100mm IS.
It really depends on whether or not you have a ringlite. A ringlite is much more efficient than a speedlite because you don't have to worry about positioning it. (At least, it is better for photographing insects. It would probably not make a difference for photographing flowers on a tripod.)
They are very different... I wouldn't worry about it; if you find that you don't use the 85mm anymore, you could always sell it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote