Need your thoughts & views on Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8 IS USM

Hello to all,

I need everyones advice if it's worth to buy the canon 100m macro f/2.8 IS USM considering the lenses i have right now.

I am a newbie in dpreview and I am just starting to DSLR photography.I recently have the following lenses on my Canon 7D:

Canon 15-88mm f/3.5 - 5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8 II (nifty-fifty as they call it)
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM
Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS USM (planning to buy)

I am considering of buying the new Canon prime macro 100m f/2.8 IS USM. I like to do portraits, sports and now macro. What i like about the new macro lens is it has a 2.8 aperture that i need on some low light occassions.

My questions are:

Will the macro 100mm f/2,8 serve it's purpose if i buy it considering shots i would like to do?

I am using a 7D which is a cropped sensor, it will become 160mm and i think it's to tight if i don't have the space and distance.will this be still usefull for portraits?

Also, i have the 70-200 f/4 IS, will this lens somehow cover the 100mm macro (160mm for 7D) that i am looking for?

I've been reading a lot of reviews of the 100m f/2.8 IS macro and it's seems that it is also good for portraits apart from macro.

Thank you all in advance.

Best,

Bensho

bensho said:

Hello to all,

I need everyones advice if it's worth to buy the canon 100m macro f/2.8 IS USM considering the lenses i have right now.

I am a newbie in dpreview and I am just starting to DSLR photography.I recently have the following lenses on my Canon 7D:

Canon 15-88mm f/3.5 - 5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8 II (nifty-fifty as they call it)
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM
Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS USM (planning to buy)

I am considering of buying the new Canon prime macro 100m f/2.8 IS USM. I like to do portraits, sports and now macro. What i like about the new macro lens is it has a 2.8 aperture that i need on some low light occassions.

My questions are:

Will the macro 100mm f/2,8 serve it's purpose if i buy it considering shots i would like to do?

I am using a 7D which is a cropped sensor, it will become 160mm and i think it's to tight if i don't have the space and distance.will this be still usefull for portraits?

Also, i have the 70-200 f/4 IS, will this lens somehow cover the 100mm macro (160mm for 7D) that i am looking for?

I've been reading a lot of reviews of the 100m f/2.8 IS macro and it's seems that it is also good for portraits apart from macro.

Thank you all in advance.

Best,

Bensho

Click to expand...

I guess there are two reasons for buying the 100/2.8L IS. One is that it is an excellent macro lens with IS specially designed to be effective for hand-held close-up work. The other is that it is Canon's only prime lens with IS, short of the 200/2, 300/4 and 300/2.8, and longer, although of course it is no faster than the 70~200/2.8L IS zoom that includes the same focal length.

I recently upgraded my 100/2.8USM to the new IS lens, and am very pleased with the new capabilitieis, although in terms of image quality there is little to choose – the non-IS lens is also very good. I use it mainly on FF for botanical fieldwork, and rather less often on a 1.6-factor body for dragonflies and butterflies. On 1.6-factor I find it uncomfortably long for ordinary macro work, whereas it is often not long enough for lively insects. Different types of close-up/macro work require different equipment, so just saying that you are wanting to get into macro does not really identify what you need. If your priority is portraiture, you would probably be better off with the 85/1.8 if you feel the need for something faster than the 70~200/4 to allow more DoF control, and if you are just getting into macro you might be better off starting with the excellent EF-S 60/2.8 (which I also have). You could buy both the 85/1.8 and the 60/2.8 for about what the 100/2.8IS costs.

wow! great inputs. You gave options as well.

Thanks RS_RS.

I debated a long time on buying this lens. It's excellent, and now gets more use (macro shots, product shots) than any of my other lenses.

The IS isn't as good at the macro end as at greater subject distances, but it does help during focusing with Live View.

The 100mm does autofocus at macro distances, however small magnification differences indicate that the focus varies slightly from shot to shot. I usually manually focus with Live View (particularly insects and flowers).

You can see numerous samples from this lens in both the Weekly Macro/Close-up thread and the Flower, foliage & fungi thread .

Regards, Bill

Thanks Bill. Are you also using a cropped camera like 7D with this macro lens? My reasons for considering this lens are for macro shots with insects & subjects and for some portrait shots from a certain distance.

Regards,

bensho

I just bought the EF 100 IS L Macro the other day to use with my 5D II and 7D, it is a fantastic lens I had the EF-S 60 2.8 Macro that I sold and I am glad I did, go for it you won't regret it
--
http://www.pbase.com/spartanwarrior

If you like taking lots of indoor portraits, I would strongly recommend the above lens for a crop sensor. And if you take 2 or more people shots indoors, you should forget about 100mm unless you have a very large indoor area. I have a T2i and considered 100mm and 60mm for a long long time before buying the 60mm and i am so glad that i did. There are situation, when I am taking portraits, that I feel that even a 60mm is too long for indoor use on a crop sensor, 100 mm would have killed that use for me. And yes, I am able to take excellent macros with 60mm as well. You can go to my gallery below and look at some of the macros that I have taken (remember that I am totally new to macro photography).

--
-dibs2010
http://flickr.com/dbjunction

Already owning a 70-200 F4 IS,you might look at the 60mm f/2.8macrr the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro for even more low light ability.No IS on either,but they are easy to hand hold.

The 60mm is very light,is a better FL for portrait than the 100 IS macro and is nearly as sharp(costs much less,too).Most every true macro available is optically excellent.The main advantage to me to moving from 60mm to 100mm is an increase in the minimum working distance(the closest point from the subject to lens that will focus).On the 60mm lens it's about 3.5" and the 100mm is about 6".But that's as close as you can work.Many macro shots will be from further away(less magnification than 1:1).

if you need AF and macro go for it , other wise get the zeiss 100f2 or Canon 135f2L.

both are sharper and optically better than the 100L.

bensho said:

Hello to all,

I need everyones advice if it's worth to buy the canon 100m macro f/2.8 IS USM considering the lenses i have right now.

I am a newbie in dpreview and I am just starting to DSLR photography.I recently have the following lenses on my Canon 7D:

Canon 15-88mm f/3.5 - 5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8 II (nifty-fifty as they call it)
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM
Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS USM (planning to buy)

I am considering of buying the new Canon prime macro 100m f/2.8 IS USM. I like to do portraits, sports and now macro. What i like about the new macro lens is it has a 2.8 aperture that i need on some low light occassions.

My questions are:

Will the macro 100mm f/2,8 serve it's purpose if i buy it considering shots i would like to do?

I am using a 7D which is a cropped sensor, it will become 160mm and i think it's to tight if i don't have the space and distance.will this be still usefull for portraits?

Also, i have the 70-200 f/4 IS, will this lens somehow cover the 100mm macro (160mm for 7D) that i am looking for?

I've been reading a lot of reviews of the 100m f/2.8 IS macro and it's seems that it is also good for portraits apart from macro.

Thank you all in advance.

Best,

Bensho

Click to expand...

I have all the lenses you mention below. I use the canon 40d which is also a crop sensor.

The 15-85 is a great all around lens. But Macro ability is only 1/5th actual size.

The 50 1.8 II is a great portrait lens on a crop sensor camera. Macro is 1/6th actual size.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is also wonderful for portraits at 70mm and good for wildlife, sports etc. Macro is 1/5th actual size.

Which brings us to the 100L f/2.8 macro. I've shot some wildlife including macro with this lens. As a macro lens it excels. Focusing is quick but not as fast as the 70-200 due to the macro abilities. But still fast enough that I was able to track a red tail hawk as it flew by. So if you're shooting an evening concert from way back it will be wonderful. But for portraits I'd likely stick with the 50 or 70-200 on a crop sensor.

Andy

bensho said:

Hello to all,

I need everyones advice if it's worth to buy the canon 100m macro f/2.8 IS USM considering the lenses i have right now.

I am a newbie in dpreview and I am just starting to DSLR photography.I recently have the following lenses on my Canon 7D:

Canon 15-88mm f/3.5 - 5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8 II (nifty-fifty as they call it)
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM
Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS USM (planning to buy)

I am considering of buying the new Canon prime macro 100m f/2.8 IS USM. I like to do portraits, sports and now macro. What i like about the new macro lens is it has a 2.8 aperture that i need on some low light occassions.

My questions are:

Will the macro 100mm f/2,8 serve it's purpose if i buy it considering shots i would like to do?

I am using a 7D which is a cropped sensor, it will become 160mm and i think it's to tight if i don't have the space and distance.will this be still usefull for portraits?

Also, i have the 70-200 f/4 IS, will this lens somehow cover the 100mm macro (160mm for 7D) that i am looking for?

I've been reading a lot of reviews of the 100m f/2.8 IS macro and it's seems that it is also good for portraits apart from macro.

Thank you all in advance.

Best,

Bensho

Click to expand...

--

aVolanche said:

Already owning a 70-200 F4 IS,you might look at the 60mm f/2.8macrr the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro for even more low light ability.No IS on either,but they are easy to hand hold.

Click to expand...

But for macro the lack of a tripod ring kills the usability of this otherwise great lens. I wouldn't want to do macro photography without the ability to choose and switch orientation on a whim without having to completely rearrange the tripod and head to do so...



--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

I think it is a matter of personal preference if it were me I'd go for something like the 135L which is one of the best portrait lenses out there better than the 100L by accounts but if you are interested in Macro then the 100L probably is an excellent choice because it can do both macro and portraits. If it is very much like the original 100 2.8 macro it would be great for portraits but only head shoulder and half body shots because anything more than a half body shot the lens remembers that it is macro lens in much larger world. Just so you know what I mean...I have the 85 1.8 which can do pretty much anything except macro given the physical space needed for the lens to perform such as street photography. My macro lens sometimes does exceptonally well at close range portraits but I could never use it in the street effectively unless I stopped down to about f5 or else the at least pictures don't look right to me. However like I said I'm sure how much different the L is from the original 100macro lens

bensho said:

Hello to all,

I am considering of buying the new Canon prime macro 100m f/2.8 IS USM. I like to do portraits, sports and now macro. What i like about the new macro lens is it has a 2.8 aperture that i need on some low light occassions.

Click to expand...

I would recommend you buy John Shaw's book "Closeups in Nature".

Hi there,

I agree with most people that you should buy EF-S 60mm Macro instead. Firstly, yes 100mm is too long for portrait unless you're on FF camera. Secondly, I'm sure you wouldn't lose too much quality by buying the 60mm instead of the 100mm L IS.

bensho said:

Hello to all,

I need everyones advice if it's worth to buy the canon 100m macro f/2.8 IS USM considering the lenses i have right now.

I am a newbie in dpreview and I am just starting to DSLR photography.I recently have the following lenses on my Canon 7D:

Canon 15-88mm f/3.5 - 5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8 II (nifty-fifty as they call it)
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM
Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS USM (planning to buy)

I am considering of buying the new Canon prime macro 100m f/2.8 IS USM. I like to do portraits, sports and now macro. What i like about the new macro lens is it has a 2.8 aperture that i need on some low light occassions.

My questions are:

Will the macro 100mm f/2,8 serve it's purpose if i buy it considering shots i would like to do?

I am using a 7D which is a cropped sensor, it will become 160mm and i think it's to tight if i don't have the space and distance.will this be still usefull for portraits?

Also, i have the 70-200 f/4 IS, will this lens somehow cover the 100mm macro (160mm for 7D) that i am looking for?

I've been reading a lot of reviews of the 100m f/2.8 IS macro and it's seems that it is also good for portraits apart from macro.

Thank you all in advance.

Best,

Bensho

Click to expand...

i was recently tyring to make the same decision. I was debating between the 60 and the 100 macros. they are both excellent lenses. what it boiled down to for me was the longer focal length which gave me the ability to be a little further away from the critters, etc. and the IS. I have been very pleased with the results. good luck with your decision.

bensho said:

Hello to all,

I need everyones advice if it's worth to buy the canon 100m macro f/2.8 IS USM considering the lenses i have right now.

I am a newbie in dpreview and I am just starting to DSLR photography.I recently have the following lenses on my Canon 7D:

Canon 15-88mm f/3.5 - 5.6
Canon 50mm 1.8 II (nifty-fifty as they call it)
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM

Click to expand...

Greetings,

Both of Canon's 100mm Macro offerings are outstanding optics. The less expensive non-L/non-IS version is so sharp that it was/is frequently used to test DSLR bodies with.

Depending on what your primary end use is, there may be better and less expensive options available for you.

Obviously, ether of the 100mm macros would give you true 1:1 macro capibility and 1-stop faster glass. At a costly premium the "L" version adds IS.

While on a smaller scale, in Macro the focal length determines the working distance. A 60mm macro will require a shorter distance than the 100mm and a 180-200mm will allow a longer working distance. In my experience, Canon's optional hood for the 100mm barely clears whatever it is I'm shooting 1:1 macro of. Personally, if I were shopping for a true macro again I'd seriously consider the Sigma 150mm or the Canon 180L.

When it comes to portraits and a pleasing 'blur' or bokeh of the background, a number of elements come into play. Aperature, Focal Length, Subject-Camera distance and Subject-Background distance. Faster glass, longer focal length, shorter subject-camera distance and longer subject-background distance add/increase background blur while the inverse of any of the above subtract from background blur.

The focal length and subject framing determine your camera-subject distance. Given that you already own a 70-200/F4IS, you can determine if 100mm works for your application.

Personally, when I was shopping for a 'portrait lens' for my crop body, I looked long and hard at both the 100mm macro as well as the 85/F1.8 and determined that the 85/F1.8 was better suited for my needs. (I later got the 100mm macro for macro work)

As others have already mentioned, you could purchase both the EFS60macro and EF85/1.8 for less than what Canon wants for a 100L and likely have a better solution for both macro and portraits.

--
(insert brag sheet here)
http://flickr.com/photos/mbloof
Technologist @ Large

• Mark0

Does not really make a big difference for little critters and macro. The insects will still take off with either lens. You need a longer focal length like the 300 F4L IS for insects (minimum focusing distance is 4.9 feet), although not a true macro, it is very good. See the two links here.

http://artfx.zenfolio.com/p1002709941
http://artfx.zenfolio.com/p831123662

The big difference in the two lenses is the bokeh (background blur) and the IS on the 100. The 100 will have much smoother bokeh because it is a longer focal length. The 85 1.8 also has excellent bokeh, but has a longer minimum focal distance, a bit of purple fringing and probably a touch less sharp.

The 60 and 100 are both excellent for portraits, but the 100 is getting tighter unless you have the room. So like I said, determine if you need the IS first, and how important bokeh is. Optically bother are excellent.

Searching said:

Does not really make a big difference for little critters and macro. The insects will still take off with either lens.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the large number of insects that get photographed daily with those short lenses and to the photographers which get much better results than the ones you present with their very compressed tele perspective (which is sometimes called for but for most shots simply is awful. Your bees for example don't have any depth to them)...
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

Hi

I'm also thinking of buying the Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8 is usm, I only here good things about it! I will be trying it along with Sigma 120-400, Sigma 150-500 and a canon 100-400mm tomorrow any addvice on thses would also be greatly appreciated

many thanx

bensho said:

Thanks Bill. Are you also using a cropped camera like 7D with this macro lens? My reasons for considering this lens are for macro shots with insects & subjects and for some portrait shots from a certain distance.

Click to expand...

Not yet - all with a 5DM2. However my wife just got a 7D, so very soon one of us will try that combination.

Regards, Bill