Anyone own the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro?

Dirquist · June 23, 2011

Ok, Im looking for a new lens. I have a 18-55 kit lens and a EF-S 22-200mm 4-5.6 IS. Those are my two basic lenses to get me started but now I want to start my "high end" collection but Im not sure where to start. I want to be as versatile as possible and not make any mistakes on buying the big boys. Im currently using a T3i with plans on a 7d in the future (or whatever might come out before then) when I pass it down to my wife. So here are my thoughts:

Id like a macro lens almost as much as a portrait lens. I am very very close on which I want first. Honestly, I was thinking the portrait lens first, maybe the EF 35mm f/1.4l or the 50mm version, or maybe even the 85mm. But then I got to reading on the 100mm f/2.8l IS Macro. According to reviews it is a great portrait lens. Ill be using it to mostly take pictures of my 7month old when not shooting macro. Remember, I will be getting this lens eventually anyhow as I really want a macro and I think I will like the 100mm or maybe even 180mm focal length. So to sum this up, it makes sense to me to get the macro first since it apparently can do good portraits but a portrait lens cant do macro. Either way, if I get the macro now Ill be getting a good portrait lens next. Neither will be used professionally as Im an amateur who is looking to get pro results but not go into business.

Im asking this here because I cant trust amazon reviewers on this. I need word from you guys to help guide me a little. I may be totally off base here and Im not afraid of you guys telling me so.

ThatCanonGuy · June 23, 2011

Never trust amazon reviews

. I don't either.

Actually, the 100mm you mention is an excellent portrait lens as well as macro! 100mm is really ideal for portraits. It depends on what type of portraits, though. Posed portraits are a good 100mm use; other than that, it depends on how close you are to your subject. I wouldn't really recommend the 35mm 1.4 for portraits. It's just too wide; it'd be better just as a general walkaround/street/landscape lens. I would use at least 70mm for portraits. Which is where the 100mm comes in. While I don't own it, you know it's great lens because of the red ring

. It sounds like it would be perfect for you, since it excels at both of your intended uses.

DeVerm · June 23, 2011

Love the 100L macro! Here's some shots done with the 7D and the 100L; portraits, big things, small things

:

Dirquist · June 23, 2011

Thanks so much fellas. Im gonna get it. Im tired of reading and reading and reading already hehe. Sounds like I found a winner with my research. Now instead of a portrait lens next Im gonna need a great street lens with some fast glass. Im here in Seattle and its kinda gloomy around here a lot so I need to fast glass. So with that in mind, what wide angle would match my crop body best, the 55mm over the 35mm I would think, no? Anyhow, all the best and thanks for the advice you two.

ziggy53 · June 23, 2011

Your 18-55mm "kit" lens is fairly wide at the 18mm end of the zoom. Be sure to stop it down a bit if you use it in good light that allows stopping down.

NeilL · June 23, 2011

I have the 100mm macro L.

Yes, it is versatile, but keeping in mind the characteristics of its length and macro nature, and that it is a prime.

The IQ from my copy blows me away. Like all strongly "specialised" high quality lenses, it is full of surprises to be discovered.

If you can indulge in a lens of this price for the pure pleasure of what it produces do not hesitate.

Neil

Brett1000 · June 24, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

I have the 100mm macro L.

Yes, it is versatile, but keeping in mind the characteristics of its length and macro nature, and that it is a prime.

The IQ from my copy blows me away. Like all strongly "specialised" high quality lenses, it is full of surprises to be discovered.

If you can indulge in a lens of this price for the pure pleasure of what it produces do not hesitate.

Neil

The Canon 100mm L is nice but for me the much cheaper Canon 100mm 2.8 macro is a better value, and for a crop model the Canon 60mm or Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro or Tamron 60mm 2.0 macro represent even better values.

Dirquist · June 24, 2011

Thanks NeilL. I fully understand. I want this lens as a macro and everything else is just icing on the cake. I was going to buy it regardless, but I wasnt sure I was going to get it essentially first. But it does seem versatile enough that I will get it first.

Cool Brett, Ill take a look at each of the lenses you mention. Do you know of those you suggested if they have as good of weather sealing as Ive been told the Canon L series has? Im in a very wet/damp climate and I want something with good weather sealing. I wont be in direct rain or anything but things that get stored it this state need to deal with a lot of moisture in general.

ziggy53 · June 24, 2011

Some Canon "L" series lenses are weather sealed and some are not. Most of the weather sealed lenses still need a sealed filter in front to be fully sealed. The Canon EF 100mm, f2.8 L IS USM Macro does appear to be weather sealed but these are not "hermetic" seals and do not prevent high humidity from permeating the lens over time.

In a damp climate you really need to use a controlled environment "dry box" or similar for any long term storage and to prevent potential damage to camera equipment, like lens mildew and fungus problems.

Jason Hermann · June 24, 2011

I just got done doing a review on the Canon 100mm Macro and it is nothing short of incredible!! Tons of sample photos and more here >>

http://jhpvideotutorials.com/2011/06/10/macro-lens-shootout-canon-ef-100mm-f2-8-l-is-macro-vs-canon-ef-100mm-f2-8-macro-vs-tamron-sp-af-90mm-f2-8-di-macro/

Best,
Jay

Dirquist · June 24, 2011

ziggy53, as always, thanks for the advice! Ill look into a dry box. I gotta figure though in the end the more weather sealing the better even if it wont completely protect me.

Jason, love the shootout. I bookmarked the site. Thanks for popping in a contributing to my thread. Im definately decided on the L now. Just a matter of a couple weeks (or maybe days lol) before I buy it. I have a personal rule to sleep on these type of decisions for a week or two before I pull the trigger. I like to be as sure as I can.

Jason Hermann · June 24, 2011

Right-on

Good luck with your purchase on whatever you decide!!

Best,
Jay

puzzledpaul · June 25, 2011

Dirquist wrote: »

Neither will be used professionally as Im an amateur who is looking to get pro results

I think any of the 3 (and others) would fit the bill ... especially from the macro aspect, where technique and lighting play such an important role - note that some other 'non pros' - like LordV - get real pro results from - in his case a Sigma 105.

Comparing results - for true macro shots, where the lens is invariably stopped down is about as real world valid as comparing AF performance in the same situations because MF is the norm.

Truly superb images exist that have been taken by the less expensive 'old guard' ...

Re portraits ... I can think of several regulars of these forums who'd whisper '135 f2' in the lug'oles of anyone who'd be prepared to listen ...

It'd be interesting to compare the cost of a used ef100 macro + used 135 to a new 100 is macro.

pp

paddler4 · June 26, 2011

The 100mm L macro is indeed a spectacular lens. However, what canonguy said is right: whether this is a good portrait lens depends on how close you expect to be. Also, in the 35 mm film world, 90-100mm was often considered an ideal portrait lens because of the perspective. this lens on a crop sensor camera is much longer, equivalent to 160mm.

however, you have in your hands the ability to resolve this for yourself. Set your zoom at a few different lengths and see how well those lengths work for the types of portraits you want.

I shoot a crop sensor, and when I shoot candids of kids, I usually leave my 100mm at home and take a 28-75 for most indoor shots and a 70-200 for tight head shots. Just my preference; YMMV. Try some focal lengths and see.

chrisjohnson · June 27, 2011

Shooting macro is a different kettle of fish. I bought a 100mm ef Canon macro lens for my ef-s camera, without IS or L, and it is a wonder. It also takes a good portrait. I think IS for macro is silly as I always have to use a tripod anyway, but I suppose it can be handy in the margins when you have a very high ISO body.
When you intend to stay ef-s you might want to look at the shorter speciality ef-s macro lenses which are well recommended. You will save some change and you will also be able to take portraits.
My favorite portrait lens was a 85mm, but it depends how you like to take portraits.

NeilL · June 27, 2011

goldenballs wrote: »

Shooting macro is a different kettle of fish. I bought a 100mm ef Canon macro lens for my ef-s camera, without IS or L, and it is a wonder. It also takes a good portrait. I think IS for macro is silly as I always have to use a tripod anyway, but I suppose it can be handy in the margins when you have a very high ISO body.
When you intend to stay ef-s you might want to look at the shorter speciality ef-s macro lenses which are well recommended. You will save some change and you will also be able to take portraits.
My favorite portrait lens was a 85mm, but it depends how you like to take portraits.

IS on a macro is not so silly if you can light the subject adequately, and it is an advantage in the "hunt"!

Some of the other macro lenses require a very much esoteric technique of use, the thought of which makes me shudder. The 100L is as easy to use as a lens can be, though for hardcore macro you have to master focus stacking.

Neil

puzzledpaul · June 27, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

Some of the other macro lenses require a very much esoteric technique of use, the thought of which makes me shudder. The 100L is as easy to use as a lens can be, though for hardcore macro you have to master focus stacking.

Neil

Could you elaborate a little on 'esoteric technique' and 'hardcore macro' please?

Re tripod use for 'macro' ... we all know there are many extremely proficient exponents of the craft who swear at ... rather than by these items ... don't we?

pp

borrowlenses.com · June 27, 2011

The 100mm f/2.8 L IS is AN AWESOME lens. Easily one of the most "fun" lenses we carry. People always tell us they buy it after renting.

DeVerm · June 27, 2011

borrowlenses.com wrote: »

The 100mm f/2.8 L IS is AN AWESOME lens. Easily one of the most "fun" lenses we carry. People always tell us they buy it after renting.

Agree; the IS makes this lens very usable for portraits, even on a crop sensor. It also helps for handheld macro work, a much used technique.

Here's a recent shot using a 5D2 with the 100L IS; click it for larger incl. 1:1

puzzledpaul · June 28, 2011

Since this new lens was - as I understand it - primarily designed for macro work, I'd like to see examples where it's been used - in the field (not test setups) to take critically sharp (ie 'pro' quality) macro pics @ 1:1 (or greater mag with ext. tubes), in natural light, unsupported/handheld ...@ settings that usefully employ its main operational difference with the previous Canon macro - 2 stops or less of IS.

Am not saying this thing isn't sharp ... or even a tad sharper than the previous 100 macro, wide open - but how many macro shooters shoot 1:1 (or greater mag) wide open IRL?

pp

NeilL · June 28, 2011

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Could you elaborate a little on 'esoteric technique' and 'hardcore macro' please?

Re tripod use for 'macro' ... we all know there are many extremely proficient exponents of the craft who swear at ... rather than by these items ... don't we?

pp

pp -

I was thinking of the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Lens, which requires a lengthy apprenticeship to master, by all accounts.

By hardcore macro I meant 1:1 or better.

Yes I know focus stacking is not always used in macro, but it is a technique which undoubtedly enhances the success of many macro images. Oof blur is often an antagonist in macro.

Neil

DeVerm · June 28, 2011

puzzledpaul wrote: »

but how many macro shooters shoot 1:1 (or greater mag) wide open IRL?

Many of the shots that use focus stacking are shot wide open.

puzzledpaul · June 28, 2011

DeVerm wrote: »

Many of the shots that use focus stacking are shot wide open.

Well, although this is drifting somewhat OT (unless the OP intends to do stacking) ... I'd like to ask where you get this info from, because it's somewht different from the scene as I understand it.

Most, if not all examples of stacking that I've come across - utilising lenses that can be stopped down - have almost always been done with the lens used in its 'sweet spot' relevant to the magnification being sought.

This is rarely the max aperture - in my albeit limited experience.

Even if there was nothing to be gained in IQ by stopping down (but also nothing lost either) then what would be the point in shooting wide open, having to take far more frames to achieve the desired dof - compared with shooting fewer frames?

In stacking it's about finding the compromise between the best IQ and minimum frames to do the job.

When lenses such as microscope objectives are used, then yes, they're used wide open because there's no choice, and their optics are optimised for a particular use.

Stacking is a whole new discussion imo, anyway, but I suspect not particularly relevant in this thread ?

All I'm saying is that if I was considering laying down the sort of money that a 100IS costs - then I'd like to see some decent real world macro shots (1x to 2x using full set of tubes) that have benefitted from the specs of the newer lens.

Such images would probably be taken by someone who'd also been using the previous model, knowing how to get the best performance out of both and be able to evaluate their differences.

Wouldn't have thought that was too much to ask?

pp

Stuart-M · June 28, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Never trust amazon reviews . I don't either.

Actually, the 100mm you mention is an excellent portrait lens as well as macro! 100mm is really ideal for portraits. It depends on what type of portraits, though. Posed portraits are a good 100mm use; other than that, it depends on how close you are to your subject. I wouldn't really recommend the 35mm 1.4 for portraits. It's just too wide; it'd be better just as a general walkaround/street/landscape lens. I would use at least 70mm for portraits. Which is where the 100mm comes in. While I don't own it, you know it's great lens because of the red ring . It sounds like it would be perfect for you, since it excels at both of your intended uses.

Bearing in mind that the OP's camera is a 1.6 crop, 35mm is basically a standard lens, great for all round people shots. For portraits 50mm and above should be fine (after all the 85mm 1.2 is a great portrait lens on full frame bodies). I would recommend the 50mm 1.4 for portraits or 85mm 1.8, both are affordable and can produce great shots, especially if stopped down a bit.

I wouldn't worry about weather sealing unless you intend to be using your camera in heavy rain for protracted periods.

Dirquist · June 28, 2011

Still reading this thread and I am still considering my options.

@ puzzledpaul, yes I have been researching focus stacking. Ive also been looking into portable lighting and hot shoe techniques. Have found a great thread already on focus stacking and have been trying with my 18-55 kit lens that has a macro mode. Its a tough discipline but I need something tough that will keep me learning far into the future. All this discussion is keeping my money in my pocket for the time being which is probably a good thing. So you guys enjoy your conversation, I just wanted to say Im still here and appreciate all the contributions.

As far as the talk about focal lengths for portraits. Unfortunately I dont think I can go more than 100mm due to space in my home studio. I can actually switch walls and move my exercise room and at that point I could go up to 135mm. My home studio is all DIY at this point. Still, for me, Im more interested in perusing macro work than studio work so the macro is my more desired lens at this point. Then maybe a street lens for wide angle shots. I really think I may pick up the 50mm 1.4 next after the macro and worry about a 85mm prime later.

DeVerm · June 28, 2011

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Even if there was nothing to be gained in IQ by stopping down (but also nothing lost either) then what would be the point in shooting wide open, having to take far more frames to achieve the desired dof - compared with shooting fewer frames?

The point would be to get the light in when no flash is used. Or when you want a totally blurred background which is close behind subject. Often you just can't achieve required DOF without focus stacking.

I think all the great macro shots of insects on this forum have been done hand held and more and more use focus stacking.

puzzledpaul · June 29, 2011

Dirquist wrote: »

Still reading this thread and I am still considering my options...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
All this discussion is keeping my money in my pocket for the time being which is probably a good thing.

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Always a good move, imo - especially when (value for) money is involved

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My main point - which still hasn't been addressed, is ... how much better is the 100 IS than the non-IS in true real world macro situations ... where the lens is likely to be stopped down.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
(I have no experience with either, although I do have an old 100mm non usm + other macro lenses - mpe 65/ 180 Tamron)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

Dirquist wrote: »

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
@ puzzledpaul, yes I have been researching focus stacking. Ive also been looking into portable lighting and hot shoe techniques. QUOTE]<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Focus stacking is a whole new ball game and deserves more attention than I am prepared to give - or more to the point, am able to give it, because I'm nowhere near as experienced as some, eg LordV, who produces superb results, with both ambient and flash ... and also without stacking ... but rarely 'wide open' ... I'd suggest.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
There's stacking ... and there's Stacking <o:p></o:p>
There's relatively low magnification stuff ... say 1x > 5x, hand held (if you're Brian ) using fairly normal kit ... cam + flash + mpe65 typically ...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Then there's extremely esoteric and very precise stuff using very stable / rigid studio setups with dead / disabled subjects ... using upto 40x microscope objectives and focus 'rails' based on microscope focus blocks capable of being moved in single figure micron 'steps' ... either by hand or computer / electronic control.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Lighting is absolutely critical for macro - so investigating a flash + bracket (if you want to go the flash route) is very useful.<o:p></o:p>
Personally I use a standard single flash (550ex) with home made bracket. Others use one of Canon's special macro lighting setups (Dalantech for ex) ... either system in the right hands can produce superb results ... but the std. flash can be used for other more general shots and typically costs less than one of the special macro lighting rigs.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

Dirquist wrote: »

Its a tough discipline but I need something tough that will keep me learning far into the future.more interested in perusing macro work than studio work so the macro is my more desired lens at this point.

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Unstacked macro isn't particularly easy anyway - I'd suggest you start with this and 'see how it goes' <o:p></o:p>
It's a rare day when you won't find something worthwhile to shoot - in the macro world and you don't necessarily have to travel very far - just your garden or even a windowbox ...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Not only will it take you time to get to grips with the technical issues, but also have to deal with the artistic ones related to coming out with a pleasing pic at the end.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

Dirquist wrote: »

So you guys enjoy your conversation, I just wanted to say Im still here and appreciate all the contributions.

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Reference has been made by several here about the quality of images taken by others here ... and whilst I don't know for sure, I suspect that many of these have been taken using kit other than a 100IS.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Since money is (almost) always a factor, imo, it'd be possible to get yourself kitted out for macro with a non IS 100 + flash etc - especially if you buy used (because many people are dumping the old, assuming their pics will automagically improve with the new) ... and probably get a 50 or 85mm too.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Almost all of my kit I've bought used, btw.

pp

<o:p>Dedicated macro site</o:p>
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/

Just one example - of many - of the sort of kit I was referring to
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2825

NeilL · June 29, 2011

consider a RayFlash for the flash

http://www.expoimaging.com/product-detail.php?cat_id=8&product_id=15&keywords=Ray_Flash:_The_Ring_Flash_Adapter

Neil

puzzledpaul · June 29, 2011

... and also cheaper options for using the on-board flash ... of which this is one

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=998&highlight=

Remember that macro shooters spend a lot of time figuring out ways to control light for 'modelling' purposes - whether using 2 (or more) mechanically adjustable flash heads - or a single flash on a macro arm (as per LordV ... and much further down the food chain, myself).

Relevant issue with on-board flash is the power / diffusion compromise.

Read Dalantech's blog re the great lengths he goes to, in order to gain the maximum (satisfactory) diffusion possible, conducive with minimum light loss.
Using the mt24ex this is important, as the relatively low output (22) compared with std flash heads could be easily reduced to a level where difficulty in obtaining a short enough burst of light is obtained - crucial when stopped down @ high mags.

Compare with typical on-board flash output.

pp

Manfr3d · June 29, 2011

NeilL wrote: »

consider a RayFlash for the flash

http://www.expoimaging.com/product-detail.php?cat_id=8&product_id=15&keywords=Ray_Flash:_The_Ring_Flash_Adapter

Neil

I have one and it is ... well, okay. It puts a whole lot of weight on the
flashgun mount and you don't get entirely uniform lighting. The bottom
of the flashring is somewhat darker than the top for obvious reasons.
But its okay for some nice shots. Worth it's money if you consider
the non-diy alternatives.

The 100mm L Macro will blow you away not only for macro shooting.
One of my best lenses.

paddler4 · June 29, 2011

Lots of macro is not done on a tripod. I do flowers in a tripod, but bugs won't wait, and the best I can usually do with bugs is a monopod.

The IS in this lens is hybrid IS, which compensates for motion parallel to the sensor as well as angular motion, so it actually does help at 1:1. I find 1.5-2 stops.

Could you elaborate a little on 'esoteric technique' and 'hardcore macro' please?

Focus stacking is a process in which you combine several images taken with slightly different focal points, to get greater depth of field. Modern software makes it quite easy (e.g., Zerene) for tripod-mounted work were alignment is not a problem.

Since this new lens was - as I understand it - primarily designed for macro work, I'd like to see examples where it's been used - in the field (not test setups) to take critically sharp (ie 'pro' quality) macro pics @ 1:1 (or greater mag with ext. tubes), in natural light, unsupported/handheld

Much field work is done with flash, because lighting and DOF are problematic at macro distances. I will post one taken with a flash, handheld with a wobbly monopod, this lens + 36mm extension, IS on. I don't claim to be a pro.

Anyone own the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro?

Comments