Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro

Spiritflier

Spiritflier

Messages
2,803
Name
Simon (Prefer 'Si')
Edit My Images
No
Evenin' all,

Does anyone have any experience of the above lens (not the image-stabilised version)? I'm seriously giving one some consideration and I'd rather buy a Canon lens than one of the third-party ones. I used to own a 105mm Sigma but found it to be a bit soft overall.

Many thanks in advance,
Si
 
I do! And I have to say I absolutely love it! It hasn't had much usage since I got my 70-200 f/2.8, but when I do take it out for macro stuff it always surprises me how sharp it is! Here are a few of my shots with it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/3235842651/in/set-72157605798026609/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/3695828844/in/set-72157605798026609/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/3695020151/in/set-72157605798026609/

Basically any macro shots on my flickr taken with a 450D or 50D were using the 100mm macro. I was torn between this and the sigma 105, but the fact that the Canon doesn't extend and the USM won it over for me. But having said that, I picked mine up for about £100 less than they go for now secondhand, so I'm not sure what I'd do if I was buying now!
 
I used to have it but sold it to Ray in here.
It'ss the better choice between the two lenses you mentioned.
 
chris321 said:
I do! And I have to say I absolutely love it! It hasn't had much usage since I got my 70-200 f/2.8, but when I do take it out for macro stuff it always surprises me how sharp it is...
Click to expand...

Morning Chris,

You've got some lovely images there. :)

Thanks for the advice,
Si
 
Make sure if you buy it that you zero it in using the micro adjustment on the camera and do it at at distance you would normally focus at.
I tested mine and it was very sharp from f3.5 onwards (2.8 wasnt bad, just not quite as good) which is fair given that doing macro shots usually requires as much dof as you can get and f2.8 isnt going to do that. My guess is Canon made it f2.8 to take advantage of the accurate focus AF points which need 2.8 of course.
Its relatively big and heavy (for a 100mm lens) but the results speak for themselves really.
The lens/body (50D) wasnt a lot out but it meant I was just missing critical focus point if I focused on an insects eye for instance.

You wont regret buying one.

Matt
 
Its a very sharp lens with good contrast and colour rendition and you will see a difference from the sigma (i made the same move and was very happy), as its internal focus you will have a bigger working distance that the sigma and if you use the auto focus (not recommended for macro) you will notice how quiet the lens is - if your looking for a new one PM Kerso for a price. To get the best out of this lens you will need some sort of flash.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
if you use the auto focus (not recommended for macro) you will notice how quiet the lens is
Click to expand...

Can be usefull if teh damn flower is getting battered by the wind, it seemed to work better than manual focusing anyway :)
Or it could be my eyes.

Matt
 
Thanks for the comments... You've been very helpful. :)

I've already got a Marumi ringflash that I picked up quite cheaply so I'll be ok on that score. I also intend to use it as a portrait lens for weddings when the light's a little bit iffy.

Regards,
Si
 
Spiritflier said:
Thanks for the comments... You've been very helpful. :)

I've already got a Marumi ringflash that I picked up quite cheaply so I'll be ok on that score. I also intend to use it as a portrait lens for weddings when the light's a little bit iffy.

Regards,
Si
Click to expand...

Its not quite as good as the 85 1.8 for portrait stuff but its still very good at that also. I'm torn as to which lens I would keep, I could macro with the 85 (and tubes) but I could do the other stuff with the 100. I cant see myself getting rid of either, they are both excellent but each one is slightly better at what it was designed for, its a very close call.

Matt
 
Had the 100 2.8 non IS, only sold as got the IS version, tbh 99% of the time no noticeable difference, grab a 2.8 non is before they stop selling them lol, you won't be sorry.
 
Get one, don't think about it too much. It starts slightly 'dreamy' at f/2.8 (good for soft focus portraits, people with imperfect skin?), but very quickly becomes extremely sharp (peaks at 5.6-8), probably one of the sharpest lenses. The focal length is also great for general short telephoto shooting. Bokeh is very good, AF fast and accurate even at macro distances. On FF it becomes even more handy as most other tele zooms or primes can't focus close enough to smaller things.
 
Spiritflier said:
I've already got a Marumi ringflash that I picked up quite cheaply so I'll be ok on that score.
Click to expand...

Hi Si,

I'm the other way round, I've got the lens, but I'm toying with a ring flash, I'm sure you know how pricey the Canon's are, how do you find the Marumi?

Pete
 
I use this lens for macro and I have to say, it is excellent. On the odd occassions I've used it for non macro, it has given a nice contrast and colours. I would not hesitate in recommending this, especially if the focal length would suit you for more everyday stuff.
 
Pete Gl said:
Hi Si,

I'm the other way round, I've got the lens, but I'm toying with a ring flash, I'm sure you know how pricey the Canon's are, how do you find the Marumi?

Pete
Click to expand...

Hi Pete,

In all fairness, it's not too bad at all. It's fully automatic so you have to mess about with the flash exposure settings on the camera to get the exposures spot on! A little bit of chimping is a good thing. :)

I've even used it for portraits on occasion but it has a tendency to throw a really hard shadow around the subject along with really bad red-eyes! If you're shooting against a dark background it's not too bad and the red-eye can be corrected in post.

I've not done a massive amount of macro work with it but that'll all change soon. :)
I need a slight change of direction before too many people start getting cheesed off with my long exposure seascapes! :D

Best wishes,
Si
 
Great stuff!

Thanks very much Si

Pete
 
Pete Gl said:
Hi Si,

I'm the other way round, I've got the lens, but I'm toying with a ring flash, I'm sure you know how pricey the Canon's are, how do you find the Marumi?

Pete
Click to expand...

Pete if you have a normal flash have a look in the macro section at the macro rigs thread - there's loads of ideas for off camera flash / diffuser's that work well with the 100mm
 
Thanks Paul, I'll do just that.

Pete
 
Chaps,
Quick additional question, I see that a couple of you have commented that the 100mm is not that amazing wide open, but is very good by F3.5. Is that the general concensus?
 
That is pretty much the case. I've had one of these lenses for a few years and it's one I don't think I'll ever move on.
 
if the non IS is anywhere near as good as the IS then its an amazing lens. I only recently got the IS version and it rocks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top