Macro lenses - how good is the 100L?

Started May 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
paparios Regular Member • Posts: 482
Re: Macro lenses - how good is the 100L?

offshore13 wrote:

Airbus5466 wrote:


Reading some magazine reviews about macros, it seems like the Sigma 105 and the Tamron 90 is considered to be the best in group. The Canon 100L while not bad seems to be less sharp and the Nikon 105 VR is far behind the others. On the plus side for Canon is build and weather sealing... The Sigma and Tamron clear test winners. The standard non L 100 macro is considered to be sharper by the way...

What do you make of this? I love my Sigma 35 mm 1.4 art, is it time to consider a Sigma instead of the 100L? Anyone with experience from all of these lenses?


I've no experience with the others. I can only defend the 100L with this post:

Reeking with 5 liters of Jack would give you a glimpse of how effective the IS in the 100L.

You can view some of my gallerries here for the sharpness of the 100L in portrait and in macro. At least for my eyes.

And it seems that you would use these 1:1 macro not only of the macro but also on other purpose such as portrait cause if only strictly macro try  the MP-E 65

For macro purposes, the lens excels but it is difficult to use. I find it better to use a tripod and a tablet connected to the camera, to increase the focus accuracy (I use the DSLR Controller software for that).


 paparios's gear list:paparios's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M +17 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow