Canon 100mm F2.8

D

Donki

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,178
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

I am thinking of to do more and more portraits, I currently use my Nifty Fifty for most of them and am pretty happy. However I also enjoy Macro and currently use an old but good Cosina 100mm Macro lens. Basically wanting to know how good the Canon 100mm USM Macro is at potraits in both low and good light, would the image quality be better than the Nifty Fifty? Would the Canon 60mm Macro be a better range for portraits. Its a pity I didnt have the money to buy them all :thumbsdown:.

Any pictures and advice greatly appreciated.
 
i have the 100mm f2.8 macro and it is a lovely lens.

it's very sharp and renders a lovely soft background for portraits. i can't comment on the 60mm macro, but the longer focal length of the 100mm will compress the background and facial features nicely. if you want me to post any portraits i've taken with it, let me know.

i think low light performance is going to depend on your camera in part - i've taken some stunning pictures in available light but they can't really be moving and you do need to pump the iso up a tad.... not sure how the 40d performs in this area.

oh, and in regards to your nifty fifty, yes. the lens has much better contrast and sharpness (especially wide open). if you compare the two at f2.8 the 100mm macro is certainly sharper (and much sharper then the nifty fifty wide open): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=107&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2

the main thing though is the colour and contrast rendition from the 100mm macro... it's is lovely.
 
Mark,

Cheers for that, 40D ISO performance isnt bad depending on how dark the subject is I have been able to use 800 for bigger prints and 1600 for standard prints. All depends on how good the exposure is. Sounds good then, Il sell off my older macro and get one bought, probably from on here :).

Image Quality / colour reproduction is the biggy, I keep getting asked to do the "baby shots" or other portraits just for frieds and family and stuff and lookign something that will give me good results as well as takign a good macro.

Would love to see some samples if you have the time.
 
i purchased the 100mm macro for the very same thing! - i've got some baby shots which really show what the lens can do... i'll post them up as soon as i get home from work.
 
4463240918_52e8826e65_o.png

4463240498_22c56e7cca_o.png

4463240010_085fc70ab6_o.png
 
4639001083_aa16a7b739_o.png

4639000515_d12b8fd55a_o.png

4639000019_2b27df5548_o.png

4639608234_8730790782_o.png

4639607814_52dd2edb83_o.png

4638997991_3273282b8a_o.png
 
Cuthbert,

Chees my man they look very nice indeed, I see what you mean about the colour and crispness, they are mighty impressive. I think I am sold, just have to ge rid of to of my lenses and I am flying. 3,5,6,9 are crackers they are the baby "big eyes" my folks have been wanting :).

Much apreciated.

Ian
 
cuthbert said:
i purchased the 100mm macro for the very same thing! - i've got some baby shots which really show what the lens can do... i'll post them up as soon as i get home from work.
Click to expand...

Wow! Those are awesome!

You must have a better lens than my copy, mine won't make my photos look that good unfortunately ;) :lol:

:thumbs:

Chris
 
Cuthbert, some great shots, thanks for sharing with us.
Quick question for yourself. Virtually every lens I've ever used is a little soft wide open. Some move to being sharp quickly, some less so. e.g. my 85mm F1.8 is spot on from F2.0 down. How about the 100mm F2.8?
 
westley byford said:
how much for the nifty?? ;)
Click to expand...

Lol your straight in there, unfortuneately my fifty ain't one of the lenses I'm looking too sell :p

From what I have heard the 100mm is sharp dead centre wide open and rite to the edge a stop or 2 down. The website a digital picture that cuthbert linked to in his prevous post is possibly the hardest reviewing site I have ever seen and even it signs the 100mm's praises. Will definitely be my next purchase.
 
lol, no worries, got to get in there early...

early bird catches the worm.. or in this case he didnt :(
worth a try though ;)
 
thanks for the comments everybody - i think everyone of those pictures was shot wide open at f2.8 - it is very very sharp at f2.8. i've hardly ever used it beyond f4. it's a great lens.

one thing i never really did do with it (which i must) is some true macro. i might have one or two close up flowers. i'll have a look and see what i can find.
 
Are these portraits took by hand cuthbert, if so any trouble with camera shake with it not been an IS lens???? Cant make my mind up between Non IS or IS
 
Lovely shots and superb bokeh.
I wonder if anyone has tried the 100mm f2, it reviews well and costs a bit less.
The f2.8 wide open will have the same degree of blur as the 50mm f1.4 so the f2 with greater blur might be ideal for outdoor half length shots.
 
@mightymaiden: all hand held.

The only IS lens I ever had was the kit and I sold it pretty quickly so I'm used to not having IS - all those images would have been taken at f2.8.

Shooting with macro handheld is tricky, but I don't think IS will help with that anyway - the biggest problem is narrow dof.
 
how fast is the focusing on the mark 1 100mm macro. Very tempted at trading in the 150mm Sigma macro. Want to use it for portraits as a prime but when i feel a macro shoot coming on still have the versatility!
 
I also have the 100mm 2.8, I have the L version with IS. It's my favorite lens for portraits here are some examples:

4696436761_098122d712.jpg

4696216564_d900e50046.jpg

4685385888_cd8a50ba57.jpg

4591510540_9901f4a0d8.jpg

4462828866_d429782538.jpg
 
I've just got a 100mm Macro non-IS. It's a great lens. Colours are great, it's sharp wide open, fantastic Bokeh and the AF, although not quite as fast as some other USM lenses I have, is still pretty quick.

The only downside is that it's quite a bit heavier and bigger than the non-macro 100mm (or 85 mm) lenses. It's also 4/3 stop slower.

Optically, I'd say it was possibly the best lens I own, rivalling the 70-200 f4L IS. Get one second hand, there's plenty around right now probably because of people trading up to the IS version. I'm sure that's fantastic too if you have the extra cash.
 
Troglodyte said:
I've just got a 100mm Macro non-IS. It's a great lens. Colours are great, it's sharp wide open, fantastic Bokeh and the AF, although not quite as fast as some other USM lenses I have, is still pretty quick.

The only downside is that it's quite a bit heavier and bigger than the non-macro 100mm (or 85 mm) lenses. It's also 4/3 stop slower.

Optically, I'd say it was possibly the best lens I own, rivalling the 70-200 f4L IS. Get one second hand, there's plenty around right now probably because of people trading up to the IS version. I'm sure that's fantastic too if you have the extra cash.
Click to expand...

Yep so true, ive been on the hunt for th eL IS version bt nothing second hand has turned up yet.
 
The 100/2.8 is a great lens and if you feel you need it for the macro it's a killer balance between IQ, weight and working distance with a decent price.. but focusing in low light is not as "assertive" as it could be.

Consider the 85/1.8 as well, should focus faster and the 100 can be a bit long on a crop camera for portraits. Also small, the 100/2.8 can feel a bit front-heavy especially after a nifty fifty :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top