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