Using Canon 100mm macro for non-macro photography...

[BlueTrain]

Hi All,

Is there anything inherently 'wrong' with using my Canon 100mm macro lens for other types of photography, particularly travel, landscape, architectural photography?

I have taken a number of test shots and they look ok.

Reason I ask is that although I just love this lens, I really could do with the extra stops of light from the IS (L series) version of the 100mm macro lens, and would like to upgrade.

I have the L series 24-105mm Canon lens which i'm finding I dont use all that often these days. For landscape work I use the 17-40mm, I also have a 50mm prime lens, and so if I upgraded to the L series 100mm macro then that more or less covers the range of the 24-105mm. Except maybe it doesn't, as presumably the L series macro wont perform as well at 100mm as the L series 24-105 at the same focal length?

Cheers
Tom

 

[yodermk]

full frame camera or crop?

100mm on a crop is kind of long for most photography, especially landscape. However it is a wonderful lens for anything that fits in its frame, and has no trouble focusing to infinity.

Even on FF it would be long. Take it and a wider lens and that could replace the need for a telephoto zoom.
--
If it's a Single Lens Reflex, why do I need so many lenses?

 

[barmaley111]

Hi Tom,

Canon 100mm macro lens can be used for almost any type of photography without any limitations. AF may be slow if you forget to use range limiter to exclude macro range.
At 100mm both lenses (I mean original and L IS) are much better than 24-105L.
I had original 100mm macro and now enjoying L version.

http://alexsukonkin.com/reviews/Canon-EF100f28-L-IS-USM_en.shtml
here is my field experience with it.

Hi All,

Is there anything inherently 'wrong' with using my Canon 100mm macro lens for other types of photography, particularly travel, landscape, architectural photography?

I have taken a number of test shots and they look ok.

Reason I ask is that although I just love this lens, I really could do with the extra stops of light from the IS (L series) version of the 100mm macro lens, and would like to upgrade.

I have the L series 24-105mm Canon lens which i'm finding I dont use all that often these days. For landscape work I use the 17-40mm, I also have a 50mm prime lens, and so if I upgraded to the L series 100mm macro then that more or less covers the range of the 24-105mm. Except maybe it doesn't, as presumably the L series macro wont perform as well at 100mm as the L series 24-105 at the same focal length?

Cheers
Tom

--
Kind regards,
Alex.

You are welcome to have a look at my gallery:
http://alexsukonkin.com

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Hi All,

Is there anything inherently 'wrong' with using my Canon 100mm macro lens for other types of photography, particularly travel, landscape, architectural photography?

I have taken a number of test shots and they look ok.

There is no reason at all not to use it. Modern (post 1980-ish) macro lenses have floating elements which allow optimisation for macro distances without any penalty at non-macro distances. The obsessive perfectionist might argue that macro lenses tend to be very highly corrected for spherical aberration which makes them "too sharp" for portraits and the like, but I personally can't see any difference - my 85/1.8 for example is bitingly sharp at f/2.8. (Cruelly sharp for portraits!) No, what you have is a good, sharp lens for any purpose.

Reason I ask is that although I just love this lens, I really could do with the extra stops of light from the IS (L series) version of the 100mm macro lens, and would like to upgrade.

You won't capture any more light with the L, they are both f/2.8.

I have the L series 24-105mm Canon lens which i'm finding I dont use all that often these days. For landscape work I use the 17-40mm, I also have a 50mm prime lens, and so if I upgraded to the L series 100mm macro then that more or less covers the range of the 24-105mm. Except maybe it doesn't, as presumably the L series macro wont perform as well at 100mm as the L series 24-105 at the same focal length?

As well and maybe even better. My main concern would be losing the versatility of the 24-105.

 

[Charlie Phillips]

It's a pretty sharp lens and has great colour and contrast IMHO...I've taken some nice portraits and a few decent landscapes over the years with my older non IS 100mm - as others have said 100mm can be a tad long for some things but hey...see what fits in the viewfinder. Enjoy.
--
Best Wishes from Scotland,

Charlie.
http://www.charliephillipsimages.co.uk
May The Light Always Be Where You Want It.....

 

[Shorthand]

I use it for non-macro work primarily - the results are often stunning.

Here are some 100mm Macro samples from my Flickr photostream.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=100mm&w=41279036%40N06&s=rec

 

[BlueTrain]

Thanks everyone for those comments, really helpful.

In that case i'm really tempted to ditch the 24-105mm L and re-invest in the L series macro 100mm, as i think I will probably use it more for general photography, and proper macro which I love.

It is for use on a full frame (5D MkII) so shouldn't be too long. I'm getting used to the non-L 100mm anyway.

You won't capture any more light with the L, they are both f/2.8.

Sorry, yes, what I meant was that you can presumably get an 'effective' extra couple of stops of light because of the image stabilisation system. I do sometimes find that even in bright outdoors light I have to use a high-ish ISO for some macro shots of plants, especially if it is a little windy. I have messed up a couple of otherwise really good shots because of slight camera shake using the lens outdoors without a tripod.

Here are some 100mm Macro samples from my Flickr photostream.

Love the shot of MGM tower, the light is wonderful!

 

[Shorthand]

Thank you - it is an HDR, but on that trip I took only my 300D, the 50mm f/1.8 and the 100mm Macro.

I was amazed at what that old-school combo could do.

I left my wife with the 500D and the zooms.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

You won't capture any more light with the L, they are both f/2.8.

Sorry, yes, what I meant was that you can presumably get an 'effective' extra couple of stops of light because of the image stabilisation system. I do sometimes find that even in bright outdoors light I have to use a high-ish ISO for some macro shots of plants, especially if it is a little windy.

Wind causes subject motion, not camera shake. IS doesn't help with subject motion - the only solution is a higher shutter speed. Assuming a larger aperture is not an option due to depth of field constraints you will have to use a higher ISO speed as you said, or more light which is why so many macro shooters use flash.

 

[rrh]

The valuable discussion and invaluable links to things like barmaley111 posted is the reason I continually read these forums. Even if you have to wade thru the many respondents that often wind up in adolecent dog fights which in reality are sometimes hilarious but too often obnoxious. I do appreciate and applaud those that can disagree civilly and back their claims with evidence. Keep it up guys, I'm gettin a great education.

Canon 100mm macro lens can be used for almost any type of photography without any limitations. AF may be slow if you forget to use range limiter to exclude macro range.
At 100mm both lenses (I mean original and L IS) are much better than 24-105L.
I had original 100mm macro and now enjoying L version.

http://alexsukonkin.com/reviews/Canon-EF100f28-L-IS-USM_en.shtml
here is my field experience with it.

Hi All,

Is there anything inherently 'wrong' with using my Canon 100mm macro lens for other types of photography, particularly travel, landscape, architectural photography?

I have taken a number of test shots and they look ok.

Reason I ask is that although I just love this lens, I really could do with the extra stops of light from the IS (L series) version of the 100mm macro lens, and would like to upgrade.

I have the L series 24-105mm Canon lens which i'm finding I dont use all that often these days. For landscape work I use the 17-40mm, I also have a 50mm prime lens, and so if I upgraded to the L series 100mm macro then that more or less covers the range of the 24-105mm. Except maybe it doesn't, as presumably the L series macro wont perform as well at 100mm as the L series 24-105 at the same focal length?

Cheers
Tom

--
Kind regards,
Alex.

You are welcome to have a look at my gallery:
http://alexsukonkin.com

 

[R2D2]

as others have said 100mm can be a tad long for some things but hey... see what fits in the viewfinder.

Great advice there.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries