Canon 100 macro

siejones

siejones

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,547
Edit My Images
No
May look into this for my next lens.

I know it can be used as a 100mm lens as well as macro but I have a question about this.

Considering the lens is built for macro. If you were to compare it to a standard 100mm prime in the same price range how would it compare. Does the changes made to cater for macro degrade the 100mm when used as a standard lens such as for a portrait or even landscape shot?
 
The major difference is focus speed. The 100 macro focus is relatively slow compared to other prime lenses and it does like to hunt a fair bit. The other difference is more obvious - The 100 Macro is F2.8 but the 100 Prime is F2.0.

I use the Canon 100 Macro for portrait stuff and it produces some great results but I will be buying a 135 L F2 to use solely for portraits and weddings.
 
Ive got the Sigma 105 macro lens. Optically I cannot fault it (even against the 70-200L IS f2.8 and thats going some ...)

However if you want to focus on a moving object forget it. By diary apointment only. Flowers, bugs etc. OK. Kids (not sleeping or drugged) forget it.

Prior to having a digital SLR with the 1.6 multiplier I found it a `perfect` (ahem) portrait lens. 170mm is a bit long for portraits, plus you need to be in the next room.

Never tried to do landscape with it. Always considered that the realm of the 20-30mm lens. However scenery doesnt tend to move much so it'll probably work.

:)
 
siejones said:
Considering the lens is built for macro. If you were to compare it to a standard 100mm prime in the same price range how would it compare. Does the changes made to cater for macro degrade the 100mm when used as a standard lens such as for a portrait or even landscape shot?
Click to expand...

Both these shots were taken with the Canon 180L Macro. The squirrel shot was with the 1.4X TC fitted too!

bfly3.jpg


OY8N3224-01.jpg


Canon claim this lens's sharpness holds up throughout it's range and I've seen no reason to dispute that. I've previously owned macro lenses from Pentax and Nikon and I had no qualms about using either of those as normal short tele lenses either.

If there's a downside it's that they can be just a bit uncomfortably sharp for portraits and autofocus tends to be slower, particularly in poor light.
 
I second (or third..) the suggestions that the lens is slow to AF, paticularly in low light. I tried one a while back because I wanted a faster lens for gigs and needed to try macro. Magro didn't gram me and I could go to the bar while waiting for it to focus at gigs.

Very sharp though. VERY sharp indeed.
 
A couple examples from the Canon 100 F2.8 Macro lens

Macro

butterfly03.jpg



Portrait

model-10.jpg
 
The 100mm macro is very versatile, both as a 100mm medium tele, and as a macro. On a crop camera it translates as increased working distance which is helpful when taking pictures of nervous insects, and it's always a good iodea not to have your glass too close to the subject.

As a portrait lens it's extremely sharp - possibly too sharp - showing every wrinkle, crease and blemish doesn't always endear the snapper!

I'd certainly go for the 100mm EF macro over the EF-S version, bnoth for the increased working distance and also the fact that it would fit on my film eos as well.
 
Thanks for the replys.

I was under the impression the glass was different to get macro but now I think its about the focus accuracy and the length of the focus barrel will go to. Therefore the glass it's self is no different to a prime of the same length.

Stunning photos. I like sharp :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top