Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
I have the Canon 100mm L IS Macro, and it's an excellent lens for general macro portraiture. I understand that different people have different experience with using it for critter photography, but personally I feel that 100mm is too short for most critters (a close-up lens or extension tube on your 70-200mm will do better).



Hand-held shot with the Canon 100mm Macro L IS

Apart from jittery insects, I enjoy using the Canon 100mm L IS very much for my macro work. There've been many Internet postings about how the IS mechanism doesn't work as well as the regular IS, but my own testing and regular use have shown that it delivers remarkably well. For shots which I need to lock down with a non-IS 100mm macro, I can now shoot freely hand-held and get pin sharp images (using the proper hand-holding technique). You might like to switch to AI servo focusing to maintain focus tracking since the slight sway of hand holding may throw off the razor thin depth of field.

I have written my comments and remarks about the Canon 100mm L IS Macro in my review at http://www.nelsontan.com/reviewspage/EF100mmf2.8LisusmMacro.html

--
Photo website @ http://www.nelsontan.com

Photo blog @ http://photographyhappenings.blogspot.com/
 
You have not really told what kind of macro photos you are after.

I started with a 90mm f2.8 from Tamron. Optically a very good lens, next to the 100mm f2.8 USM from Canon the top lens in this segment in my opinion (if I disregard the more expensive 100mm L).

But there is one snag... I do not like the field of view! It now is my least used lens. I know that when I want to shoot portraits, it is still a very nice lens to have. But yes, you do need enough distance to your subject. The 2.8 advantage over the 70-200mm f4 at around 70-100mm is a plus for portraits, obviously.

About the field of view.. maybe I will discover this lens again, maybe I will be able to get creative with it again. But for me, its field of view for macro and semi macro stuff is either not wide enough, or not long enough.

For my creative "macro" photography I now use my 70-200 f4 L USM with 12mm extension ring:

























Or my 35mm f2 with 12mm extension ring:













Or even my Tokina 12-24mm at 24mm with 12mm extension ring:









I don't know, maybe I will discover something in my 90mm macro again. But for now I only used it ONCE in 3 years, when I wanted more than 1:1 magnification (with the 12mm extension ring and 1.7x teleconverter, which also did narrow its field of view):



 
hakan_wikstrom said:
Great shots and good (obvious but not overly done) PP. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and you are welcome (for the sharing).

Not all images have real PP though. Most are basically untouched.
The PP-ed ones are:

Pinkmist 2 (pink anemones), a bit of "cross processing" curves.
Snowbells, a bit of "cross processing" curves and contrast adjustment.
Sunnymushrooms, was less sunny.
Blue in dark, the black was green stuff.

The rest is basically as shot.
 
You simply can't put the 70-200 f4 IS against a true Macro lens like the 100 2.8 IS L.
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Is is just me or are most of your shots randomly focused and even at the shown size lacking in sharpness? IMHO they make a good point about not using zooms or too much extension on lenses that are not designed for it.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/spartanwarrior
 
The compression with the 300 F4L is not all that bad and better to have a compressed shot than no shot at all. The bee by the way was taken with the 60 2.8.
 
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Is is just me or are most of your shots randomly focused and even at the shown size lacking in sharpness? IMHO they make a good point about not using zooms or too much extension on lenses that are not designed for it.
Click to expand...
It is just you. That you like photos where everything is sharp is fine, and you just do not get art that is different from what you do.

My images are never about making a subject totally sharp, they are about feeling, emotion, light and colour. And what is in focus... is sharp. Yes, I am not in the habit of oversharpening in post processing. You can oversharpen your own work to your hearts content.
 
1st: you can.
2nd: My point was about field of view.

If I use a 100mm f2.8 macro (or my 90mm f2.9 macro) I still do not go for a lot of DOF. If you want to make boring documentary images, that is fine. Snapshoot away.

It is fine that you do not get my art... but dumb posts about them.. well..
 
brightcolours said:
It is just you. That you like photos where everything is sharp is fine, and you just do not get art that is different from what you do.
Click to expand...
Nope, I like the images where there is a single thin plane in focus, but that plane needs to contain something worthwhile viewing and contain moire than 1% of the frame. Your images you presented here fall short of a lot of criteria - your focus plane is put on things that have little to no detail and are obscured by for example the flower stemples - which only drive the point home that there is interesting detail there to be had as a focal point which has been missed.

Advice on macro lenses is all about sharpness and the ability to focus precisely which is clearly both lacking in your images...

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
brightcolours said:
It is just you. That you like photos where everything is sharp is fine, and you just do not get art that is different from what you do.
Click to expand...
Nope, I like the images where there is a single thin plane in focus, but that plane needs to contain something worthwhile viewing and contain moire than 1% of the frame. Your images you presented here fall short of a lot of criteria - your focus plane is put on things that have little to no detail and are obscured by for example the flower stemples - which only drive the point home that there is interesting detail there to be had as a focal point which has been missed.

Advice on macro lenses is all about sharpness and the ability to focus precisely which is clearly both lacking in your images...
Click to expand...
You just are a silly idiot who criticizes something you do not get. That is fine, but a bit silly.

There is nothing lacking in my images, just in your appreciation of art.

But is is fine that you do not get a lot of art, it is not uncommon. What is stupid though, is that my post is specifically about field of view, and you totally do not get that point, regardless of your closed minded ideas.
 
brightcolours said:
There is nothing lacking in my images, just in your appreciation of art.
Click to expand...
Ah, the last resort of people who know that there is something lacking in their images - call it art and everything goes.

And your images are little about FOV, FOV for macro is the easiest to adjust in macro ranges and rarely, if ever, dependent on the focal length. It does affect medium to long range background inclusion in the images, something which your images fail to convey because of the differences in subject, focusing and lack of exactly that type of background.

Of course there is a quite discernible difference in the perspective due to differences in focal length but that only shows up in a discernible way (to the photographer without the experience) in images that are showing the same subject focused precisely...

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
There is nothing lacking in my images, just in your appreciation of art.
Click to expand...
Ah, the last resort of people who know that there is something lacking in their images - call it art and everything goes.

And your images are little about FOV, FOV for macro is the easiest to adjust in macro ranges and rarely, if ever, dependent on the focal length. It does affect medium to long range background inclusion in the images, something which your images fail to convey because of the differences in subject, focusing and lack of exactly that type of background.

Of course there is a quite discernible difference in the perspective due to differences in focal length but that only shows up in a discernible way (to the photographer without the experience) in images that are showing the same subject focused precisely...
Click to expand...
You just type up nonsense, and yes, i do feel offended by your cr*p.

So can you stop your ridiculous criticism of my photos, as it is based on just pompous nonsense of a closed minded nature. YES, you don't get it, and even while you don't get it, you still type things that are not true.

So, just stop your further insults. They are not correct and not warranted.
 
I have the non-IS version of this lens. I tend not to use F/2.8 for macro. It provides too shallow a DOF for the things I want to shoot.

If I'd had it to do over again, and given the discounts that occurred earlier this summer, I might have bought the IS macro. However upon comparing the data for the 100mm macro lenses with the 70-200 f/4 IS, I may have wanted to try that instead. The resolution, distortion levels, vignetting and chromatic abberations are comparably good between the two and the 70-200 is more versatile!

I don't know if the 100 mm IS macro is a fast focuser, but I know the non-IS does not focus quickly. That may be an issue if you're attempting to use the IS macro lens for sports shots. In addition, because of the fast focus, the 70-200mm might be better for bug shots than a macro lens.

My advice? Rent the 100 mm IS before buying, and see if it fills the hole. Also get your hands on a set of Kenko extension tubes. Try them with your 70-200mm and see if they suit your macro needs.
 
Photog23 said:
I have the non-IS version of this lens. I tend not to use F/2.8 for macro. It provides too shallow a DOF for the things I want to shoot.

If I'd had it to do over again, and given the discounts that occurred earlier this summer, I might have bought the IS macro. However upon comparing the data for the 100mm macro lenses with the 70-200 f/4 IS, I may have wanted to try that instead. The resolution, distortion levels, vignetting and chromatic abberations are comparably good between the two and the 70-200 is more versatile!

I don't know if the 100 mm IS macro is a fast focuser, but I know the non-IS does not focus quickly. That may be an issue if you're attempting to use the IS macro lens for sports shots. In addition, because of the fast focus, the 70-200mm might be better for bug shots than a macro lens.

My advice? Rent the 100 mm IS before buying, and see if it fills the hole. Also get your hands on a set of Kenko extension tubes. Try them with your 70-200mm and see if they suit your macro needs.
Click to expand...
--It's fast focusing





Nice for portraits too at 1/60..shot overhead, live view on my toes, arms extended into a bush and from about 1foot..nice bokeh too :)





'I am what I am and that's all I am' Popeye 1960. Favorite famous Hollywood celebrity. Don't have time for the rest.....
 
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
aVolanche said:
Already owning a 70-200 F4 IS,you might look at the 60mm f/2.8macro.Or 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
Click to expand...
My wife is the macro shooter in our family and she rarely uses a tripod.Handheld,with and without flash she get excellent results.Especially on hikes,no way we will lug along a tripod.It's an extremely light lens and on a T2i or T1i makes a very hand-holsable package.For $300 used it was a no-brainer.Works beautifully for us!

If I were to shoot at greater than 1:1 magnification,tripod would be used.

Fred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top