Canon 100mm macro worth it?

[Last Bastion]

I was reading up on this lens online and it looks enticing (and for only $300 used, that doesn't hurt either). I'm looking to use it mostly for product shots and figured the macro ability would add some nice flexibility. Seems like it would work well for portraits as well, if need be. Currently I'm using the 24-105 f/4L and am wondering if it's worth the money to pick up a 100mm

 

[Dave]

IS version?

 

[Last Bastion]

IS version?

no. Just the basic one

 

[S Castle]

I assume you are looking at the old, non-IS version of this lens. I have the more recent IS version. I have to say that for portrait work it is not really that good, because the focusing ring is designed to have more movement for closer focus distances than for farther ones - the turn from 3 feet to infinity is very short, maybe 20°, while from 3 feet to minimum focus is about half a turn. This makes critical manual focusing at portrait distances very difficult. If you rely on AF and a fair DoF, it could be OK, but then your f/4 lens can do that with no problem already. If you want to take advantage of the f/2.8 of this lens for portraits then you will probably not be very happy. For macro and super close-up work, though, it works very well.

That said, I bought my lens new back when I had a 20D, and for what I use it for (macro and close-up) I am very satisfied.

 

[hotdog321]

$300 used is an awesome price for this superb lens, but it's up to you if you need it or not. Either version of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is excellent optically, though the IS version is preferable for hand held photography, but not a deal-breaker. I don't use the 100mm macro for portraits because I have a bunch of other lenses, but many people do use it.

I've used macro lenses on full frame bodies ranging from 50mm to 200mm and the 100mm macro focal length seems to be the "sweet spot" for any macro work I need to do.

























--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

 

[Last Bastion]

$300 used is an awesome price for this superb lens, but it's up to you if you need it or not. Either version of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is excellent optically, though the IS version is preferable for hand held photography, but not a deal-breaker. I don't use the 100mm macro for portraits because I have a bunch of other lenses, but many people do use it.

I've used macro lenses on full frame bodies ranging from 50mm to 200mm and the 100mm macro focal length seems to be the "sweet spot" for any macro work I need to do.









--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

excellent shots! Thank you for the "real world" experience you have with this lens

I know that if I'm just using it for macro and product work it will be amazing. I thought I'd put this question up here because I am still wary on using it for portrait.


Just to be clear, I LOVE my 24-105 but the f/4 is a bit wide for standard portraits and I'd like a little bit more bokeh which is why this 100mm keeps coming up in my lists.

 

[Last Bastion]

I assume you are looking at the old, non-IS version of this lens. I have the more recent IS version. I have to say that for portrait work it is not really that good, because the focusing ring is designed to have more movement for closer focus distances than for farther ones - the turn from 3 feet to infinity is very short, maybe 20°, while from 3 feet to minimum focus is about half a turn. This makes critical manual focusing at portrait distances very difficult. If you rely on AF and a fair DoF, it could be OK, but then your f/4 lens can do that with no problem already. If you want to take advantage of the f/2.8 of this lens for portraits then you will probably not be very happy. For macro and super close-up work, though, it works very well.

That said, I bought my lens new back when I had a 20D, and for what I use it for (macro and close-up) I am very satisfied.

 

[S Castle]

I have pretty bad eyesight, so I rely on AF at least 85% of the time. Is it really soft wide open on portraits? Just curious what you meant by using it at 2.8 I "will probably not be very happy"

The depth of field will be very shallow at f/2.8, and if you don't absolutely nail the focus to where you want it to be the photo won't be satisfactory. Since the best way of doing this is manual focus, small rotations of the focus ring at portrait distances will have a large result in where on your subject the focus falls. So, manual focusing for portraits will be a hassle. That's why I say you may not be happy. But maybe you are not as ham-handed as I am, and you don't mind just barely touching the focus ring to get the focus to get what you want.

My handy little DoF calculator says that at 1m distance the DoF is 1.5cm when using f/2.8. At f/4 it increases to 2.1cm. Remember, f/2.8 is just one f-stop open from f/4 - not all that much, really. As for improved bokeh, maybe you should look at lens reviews for that - I don't really care all that much about it, myself.

If you are good at placing and using your AF points then this might not be an issue for you.

 

[hotdog321]

$300 used is an awesome price for this superb lens, but it's up to you if you need it or not. Either version of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is excellent optically, though the IS version is preferable for hand held photography, but not a deal-breaker. I don't use the 100mm macro for portraits because I have a bunch of other lenses, but many people do use it.

I've used macro lenses on full frame bodies ranging from 50mm to 200mm and the 100mm macro focal length seems to be the "sweet spot" for any macro work I need to do.









--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

excellent shots! Thank you for the "real world" experience you have with this lens
I know that if I'm just using it for macro and product work it will be amazing. I thought I'd put this question up here because I am still wary on using it for portrait.
Just to be clear, I LOVE my 24-105 but the f/4 is a bit wide for standard portraits and I'd like a little bit more bokeh which is why this 100mm keeps coming up in my lists.

Thanks for your comments. If your 24-105 is too wide for portraits, the 100mm macro will do nothing to improve the situation.

Though not my cup of tea, many love the bokeh of the 135mm f/2.0 lens. The 70-200 f/2.8 is another popular portrait (and many other things) lens.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

 

[Last Bastion]

Thanks for your comments. If your 24-105 is too wide for portraits, the 100mm macro will do nothing to improve the situation.

Though not my cup of tea, many love the bokeh of the 135mm f/2.0 lens. The 70-200 f/2.8 is another popular portrait (and many other things) lens.

 

[Phil Geusebroek]

Well worth it. $300 is a very good price.

The original 100mm macro is an excellent lens. I've used it a lot and come to love it so much that I got the 100mm IS macro as soon as I heard about it.

A 100mm f2.8 macro is a very useful tool for most photography. I consider it a must-have. If you can come up with the scratch for the IS versio. It is worth the extra, but don't feel like you have vastly inferior optics with the old one because that wouldn't be true.

 

[Don Lacy]

I have pretty bad eyesight, so I rely on AF at least 85% of the time. Is it really soft wide open on portraits? Just curious what you meant by using it at 2.8 I "will probably not be very happy"

The depth of field will be very shallow at f/2.8, and if you don't absolutely nail the focus to where you want it to be the photo won't be satisfactory. Since the best way of doing this is manual focus, small rotations of the focus ring at portrait distances will have a large result in where on your subject the focus falls. So, manual focusing for portraits will be a hassle. That's why I say you may not be happy. But maybe you are not as ham-handed as I am, and you don't mind just barely touching the focus ring to get the focus to get what you want.

My handy little DoF calculator says that at 1m distance the DoF is 1.5cm when using f/2.8. At f/4 it increases to 2.1cm. Remember, f/2.8 is just one f-stop open from f/4 - not all that much, really. As for improved bokeh, maybe you should look at lens reviews for that - I don't really care all that much about it, myself.

If you are good at placing and using your AF points then this might not be an issue for you.

--
Shane

Any decent camera should be able to nail focus with the 100 Macro at 2.8 the DOF is not that shallow my 6D has no problems. I mostly use my 100 macro for portraits now I find it to be a great all around lens.













--
Don Lacy

500px

500px.com

http://www.witnessnature.net/

 

[JRET]

I have both and the differences in IQ is minor, maybe even imperceptible. But I prefer the L because of the IS which is worth a lot to me. You can't go wrong with either version but if IS is a feature you enjoy then the L model is worth the difference in price.

 

[Graham Meale]

I got mine before the L was released. Excellent lens. The only reason I'd ever contemplate upgrading to the L is the IS. I find I need a tripod virtually all the time.

 

[Macabron]

I think you already made up your mind. For product photography and macro it is a great lens. For headshots it is also very good. But once you move to half and full body shots, you are better off with something faster, that con provide better separation from the background.

 

[Funkyd3121]

IF you are not doing a lot of macro/close up work, the Canon 85mm 1.8 & the Canon 100mm f2.0 are both great lenses. I rented both about 7 years ago & was very impressed with the results I got.

 

[Spad16]

100 macro non-USM

100 macro USM

100 macro L IS

They're all good, but the non-USM version is rather slow focusing. It makes a difference to what you should pay for it. That said, we have the original non-USM version and we still use it now and then, it's very sharp.

/Neil

 

[expro]

Macro yes everything else no.

despite what forum members claim this lens is no sharper than many other Ls. Just read the reviews. Plus I would not use it for portraits or general photography as af is slower and is is noisy plus bokeh is average.

as you can tell not my favourite lens on 1dx, 5dsr and previously 5d3.

 

[hotdog321]

Macro yes everything else no.

despite what forum members claim this lens is no sharper than many other Ls. Just read the reviews. Plus I would not use it for portraits or general photography as af is slower and is is noisy plus bokeh is average.

as you can tell not my favourite lens on 1dx, 5dsr and previously 5d3.

+1. Glad you pointed this out. True macro lenses like this are optimized to close focusing distances and the focus barrel throw is very long in the close up range and is rather abbreviated in the portrait to infinity range. Furthermore, most are designed for a flat field of focus (for copying print material) instead of the usual rather curved field of focus.

 

[Last Bastion]

Thanks for all the advice, everyone.


It sounds like it'll be a great addition for any product work I'm doing, but look for something more appropriate for portraits.