Help me make a decision whether to buy 100mm Macro or 70-200F4L

scottduffy

scottduffy

Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
For the last few days i have had my heart set on the 70-200F4L as i think it's a pretty versatile lens with excellent optics. I have now had a brain wave and remembered how much i miss my Sigma 105 macro and thought i might buy the Canon 100mm macro now. I usually take pictures of people but when i had the macro lens before i found myself in the garden constantly and had a lot of fun. I also found i took a lot more pictures and spent more time with my camera which has got to be a good thing. I know the macro lens can double as a portrait lens too so which should i go for? I could also add the 50mm f1.8 for the same price as the the 70-200F4L incase i need shorter focal length for indoor portraits. Has anyone any portrait pics taken by the 100mm macro so i could have a chance to see the results it gives?
 
They're such different lenses that it seems an odd decision to be making, like "should I buy a Land Rover or a Porsche?" Different tools for different jobs.

With that said, you could turn the 70-200 into a reasonable impression of a macro lens by adding macro tubes, relatively cheaply. The 100 might let you isolate your subject more at 100mm and f/2.8, but at 120mm and f/4 the zoom will give you an equally shallow DOF, and at 200mm can go a whole lot further to isolate the subject.

If you need ease of use for macro especially then the macro lens might make more sense, but the zoom will probably prove to be far more versatile overall. If you shoot in low light then maybe f/2.8 will give you an advantage you cannot ignore. Howver, if you often would like a longer focal length than 100mm, cropping to achieve the same illusion will soon elimate any advantage in aperture speed. You'd be better off increasing the ISO and avoiding cropping altogether. You could add a 1.4X teleconverter to the 100mm and you'd end up with a 140mm f/4 lens. If you added a 2X teleconverter you'd be at 200mm and f/5.6, with degraded IQ, and you still couldn't achieve 175mm, or 130mm, or 83mm and so on.

For my money I'd take the zoom, but really only you can decide what suits your needs best, and without knowing which other lenses you have it is hard to give you concrete advice.

There is a thread on POTN which shows examples of "macro" shots taken with my 70-200/2.8 IS and Kenko tubes - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=537294.
 
Hi Tim,

I know fine well mate that they're two completely diffent lenses. Even as i was typing this i was thinking most people will be thinking 'why are you comparing those two lenses?' I had the sigma as i said and i enjoyed taking macro shots although they were not up to much due to the fact i had no tripod and wasn't too sure how to use it properly. I was surprised though at how much i liked the portraits i got from it. After i sold it i found myself taking portraits as normal with the sigma 17-70 which i also really liked but i never really used my camera as much as i didn't have an endless line of people wanting their photo's taken. I know the canon macro can produce nice portraits and is supposed to be a very high quality macro lens too so i just though rather than having a nice 70-200 F4L sitting in my camera bag most days and using it at weekends i could be in my garden most days work/weather permitting practising my camera technique. I'm really torn between these two and i know i wont regret which one i buy. I'm not 100% sure but if the macro can produce the same quality of portraits as the zoom then that would seal the deal as it's my main interest.
 
IF it was me, I would go for the more versatile zoom lens. But It depends on what your are going to use more.

I had the Canon 100mm IS and sold it as I only used it once in a while and bought a lens I new would get used more often.

Whats your budget?
 
I was looking at up to £375 for the zoom and going by recent sales on here i think i could pick up the macro for about £280-£300 which would mean i could purchase the 50mm f1.8 for indoor portraits if i need a shorter focal length.
 
Optically I don't think there is anything between them, the IQ on both is stunning. With the budget covering the purchase a nifty for the shorter length it really does come down to whether you need the 100-200mm range.

Look over on the Lens Example shots forum on 'Photography on the Net', there are hundredsof example shots from both lenses and the number of people using the 100mm as a portrait/candid lens was one reason I considered it alongside my 85mm 1.8. IN the end aperture and a slight cost difference were the deciding factors.
 
While the macro will double as a portrait lens and give great results, (in fact it may be a little too sharp sometimes) it's optimised for use within it's intended range - macro.

I had the 180L macro and looking at some of the images from it, I wondered for a while for why I bought the 70-200 2.8. I eventually realised that the macro didn't produce bokeh anywhere near as nice as the zoom though, in fact it could look rather strange sometimes.

I got rid of the macro when I just wasn't doing enough macro, but in all honesty I'd choose a lens on it's primary intended purpose.
 
Thanks for your opinions guys. I started out doing portraits when i got into photography just over a year ago and although i really enjoy it i also enjoyed the macro when i was playing about with it. I was wondering what the bokeh was like with the macro so thanks for clearing that up CT.
 
I don't think I'll part with my 70-200, it's a very versatile light and sharp lens, I'll add the 2.8 IS one day but still hang on to the f/4.
 
I'll stick my neck out and say go with the zoom and tubes. That's what I did - sold my 100 2.8 macro and got a 70-200L 4 IS and a set of Kenko auto tubes (£80 used from here).

I think you'll find the zoom actually better at macro for the kind of thing I imagine you'll be doing - it's just so versatile being able to adjust distance and framing with the zoom and quality is still very good.

The macro is really good for critical work, particular flat copy stuff like stamps or coins. It's corrected for that at close distance which most other lenses are not, but for shooting stuff around the garden as you say (and as I generally do) you just don't need that and will never see the benefit - 90% of the frame in most macros shots is out of focus anyway.

I would also say that 100mm is too long for portraits on your crop format camera - I use 50-70mm range. Comments about bokeh are relevant - can't say I noticed anything bad in my old 100 macro but then I didn't really use it in that way or look for it. However, the only time I have seen really horrible bokeh was in a normal distance shot taken with a Sigma 50 macro so there is definitely something in that.
 
HoppyUK said:
I would also say that 100mm is too long for portraits on your crop format camera - I use 50-70mm range. Comments about bokeh are relevant - can't say I noticed anything bad in my old 100 macro but then I didn't really use it in that way or look for it. However, the only time I have seen really horrible bokeh was in a normal distance shot taken with a Sigma 50 macro so there is definitely something in that.
Click to expand...

I normally head for around 135 to 160mm for portraits on the 70-200mm, but I am looking for the 85mm f/1.8 at the moment.
 
I had the 85mm f1.8 and it's a very nice lens. I have read a few reviews though that states the canon 100mm f2.0 is a better lens although you rarely see them for sale.
 
scottduffy said:
I had the 85mm f1.8 and it's a very nice lens. I have read a few reviews though that states the canon 100mm f2.0 is a better lens although you rarely see them for sale.
Click to expand...

there's a used one up on Mifsuds for £279... I think that the Canon 70-200 f4 is one of the best value for money lenses around. The AF is fast and acurate, image quality is excellent and it's a nice weight to walkabout with (easy to handhold for long periods of time). I've also got a macro (Sigma 105) and really like that too (I use it more than the 70-200) - it's an excellent macro lens, bittingly sharp. However I don't tend to use it for portaits and if I had to let one of them go it would be the marco.
 
without a tripod i you probably wouldn't get the best out the 100mm macro. But to see some portraits from the 100 why don't you go to flickr and use the "search for a group" feature. sure there'll be some portraits you can look at

EDIT: I've done it for you :)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/41069537@N00/

I've been digging. Here is the 70-200 f/4 L (non is) group on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon-l/pool/page3/

Notice how there are a lot of nice portraits in this group - loads more proportionally than in the 100mm macro group.
And then i did a search within the 70-200 group for macro and there are some absolutely stunning shots:

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=macro&w=447521%40N24&m=pool

And if you check the exif of some of the best of these macro shots they're not even using the extension tubes that Tim mentioned. So imagine the shots you could get if you added the macro tubes.......

Hope that helps you decide
 
scottduffy said:
I had the 85mm f1.8 and it's a very nice lens. I have read a few reviews though that states the canon 100mm f2.0 is a better lens although you rarely see them for sale.
Click to expand...

The 85 f/1.8 will be used for concerts and such and has a good fast focus from what I gather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top