EF 100mm Macro 2.8

[William]

I've recently purchased one of these lenses (see link):


www.ebay.com.au/.../380376865424


However it is not the same lens reviewed on TDP:


www.the-digital-picture.com/.../Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx


Only after purchasing it I found that there are more than just two Canon 100mm 2.8 macro lenses. Does anyone know anything about my lens? Is it like a version 1 of the non-L lens, what is it? I can't find any info or review yet.


The first tip-off that it was not the same lens was that the ET-67 hood didn't fit. And this lens extends when focusing. Also it has a 52mm filter thread instead of 58mm.


Finally how does it stack up against the non-L lens reviewed on TDP?


Cheers,


William.

[Sheiky]

William, from what I understand this is the "old" type 100mm macro lens, which was introduced in 1991 I think. In 2000 the newer type with USM was introduced.


Anyway, it's quite hard to find a review for it. I did find two, maybe useful, links:


http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon100mm/discuss/72157594301865007/


http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/233138-canon-100mm-macro-usm-vs-non-usm.html


Perhaps it's of any help. From what I've read so far is that IQ wise they aren't that difficult, but who am I to say.


How do you like the lens? It's definitely not the EF100mm f2.8 macro USM, so if that's what you've paid for, you're scammed. I personally liked the internal focus a lot on my 100mm f2.8 macro USM.


Good luck,


Ja

[William]

I paid $380 for it. Even if that was too much I don

[neuroanatomist]

There have been three Canon 100mm macro lenses. Compare them here. FWIW, the non-USM version of the lens does not take a hood, nor does it need one because of the recessed front element.

[Sheiky]

I paid $380 for it. Even if that was too much I don't think I've been scammed because the seller sold me exactly what they advertised.

That's a good thing. I got the impression that you had been misinformed, but it's ok.

As for performance, well, I can't say because I've never had a macro lens to compare it to. It's noisy, I'll give it that, it sound like the turret of a tank tuning around (and about as fast).

Haha! Well I'm not sure what your purpose for this lens was, but I can tell you that MF often works a lot better for macro than AF, so in that case the type of AF isn't so important.


Hope you enjoy your new lens!

[Daniel Browning]

Here

[Dr Croubie]

Ha, I was watching the exact same ebay listing, decided against it because I couldn

[William]

Thanks guys for your responses. I'm actually really happy with this lens, the good points out-weigh the bad. The lens is in brand new condition, all the filters that I have for the 50mm 1.8 fit the 52mm thread, no lens hood required and the image quality is as good as I was expecting. It also does what I wanted it to do, that is, take the occasional macro shots and serve as a portrait lens. The noise doesn't bother me. Even the extending focus is not as hard to manage as you might think. All the essential features are there - so I'm happy. I've just got off lightly on learning the lesson to be more careful in doing my research and checking the listing.


Does anybody want a ET-67 hood and a Tripod mount? lol!


Oh, BTW, a couple of you commented on one of my images from this lens on my Flickr account. So I thought I'd share here:









100mm 2.8 (Non-USM) macro, 30D, f2.8, ISO 3200. One of those spur of the moment shots.

[Sheiky]

That's great William. As long as you're happy with it!


To be honest I have upgraded from the 100mm f2.8 macro USM to the L-version of the lens and in all fairness I had lots and lots more fun with the non-L lens than I have had with this one. So names aren't really important. As long as you like it and it performs as it should, you're good to go.


Thanks for bringing up that portrait again by the way, I just love it!

[William]

Thanks Jan. Yeah this pic of the pick was my favorite pick too.


BTW I could do a reluctant lens swap if you like, just because I