Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

M

mightymaiden

Suspended / Banned
Messages
88
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
I am thinking about purchasing this lens (Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM). Has anyone got this lens and if so what do you think.

Any other people have any input????

Cheers, Martin
 
Excellent lens - seriously sharp, light to hold.
 
Agree, excellent macro lens and with focus limiter set works as a low light Tele for me. Working distance at 1:1 is also a very reasonable 15 cm.
 
I'v had a go with one in the past, If I could convince myself I needed one, I would have one in the blink of an eye.
 
you are better off getting the non IS version. this may be able to compensate for u hand movement (a wee li'l bit) but does not to subject movement which the most annoying thing ever. and u can sink the savings into a sturdy tripod and a geared head.
 
macro_man said:
you are better off getting the non IS version. this may be able to compensate for u hand movement (a wee li'l bit) but does not to subject movement which the most annoying thing ever. and u can sink the savings into a sturdy tripod and a geared head.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'd agree with that, most insect macro shots are taken handheld, and whilst the EF100 f2.8 macro is a fine lens it is not as good as the 100L!

I would be interested to know how you get your insects to stay still while you are setting up your tripod and adjusting the gearing on your geared head :p
 
I have this, and I have been using it for some portrait work at the weekend, and I am very very very impressed. A typical L lens, high quality, and tack sharp.
 
Thanks for the comments, will have to wait till next month till I get my bonus lol. I thinks its worth paying the extra for the IS thou lol

Martin
 
Ed
i almost always shoot macro's of insects early in the morning when they are least likely to move (low body temp). and given the the Very low dof at 1:1 i find it really hard to keep things in focus hand held. i am sure u can appreciate this.
and set up takes a couple of minutes from the bag
 
Bob

my basis is cost.
the performance difference (better/worse) between the IS and Non-Is is not significant to justify 2x price of the former even if you take into account the advantages of IS. but thats my opinion :>
 
macro_man said:
Bob

my basis is cost.
the performance difference (better/worse) between the IS and Non-Is is not significant to justify 2x price of the former even if you take into account the advantages of IS. but thats my opinion :>
Click to expand...

Okay, I assumed from your "you are better off getting the non IS version" statement that you'd discovered an area where the IS version fell short of the older one.

After using the two side by side for 6 months, I decided that the occasional advantage of IS was worth having. The IS version is also the first lens I've owned that out-resolves my test chart but it's close enough to be covered by copy variation. I also have the pre-USM version too which also gives excellent results.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Okay, I assumed from your "you are better off getting the non IS version" statement that you'd discovered an area where the IS version fell short of the older one.

After using the two side by side for 6 months, I decided that the occasional advantage of IS was worth having. The IS version is also the first lens I've owned that out-resolves my test chart but it's close enough to be covered by copy variation. I also have the pre-USM version too which also gives excellent results.
Bob
Click to expand...

You are just a kit junkie :p
 
From what I understand, but could be wrong, the IS won't give you a massive advantage with macro use as you are on MF and often rocking backwards and forwards to get the focus right. (I have read this somewhere).

I am sure that if you are using the 100/2.8 for other handheld work, the IS will be a really useful tool to have. As I only use mine for macro, that's how I've convinced myself I don't need the L. That's my excuse, so please don't burst my bubble. If I'm wrong in that generalisation, please write it in very small font, so I can't read it!! :thumbs: :D
 
Sara,

Once you know of its existence then the battle is lost :shake:

Bob
 
No Bob, I am using my INCREDIBLE willpower to ignore it!!!

Seriously though, for macro only, I'm not sure I'd notice a huge difference. I don't use it for anything else!
 
jsut a thought! - what is the AF speed like for normal distance stuff rather than jsut macro (which i do shoot MF)
My sigma 150 Macro is soooooooooooooooooooooo slow its annoying obviously compared to my other lenses. I would change to this lens if the AF was quicker.
 
The lens has three AF settings, macro to infinity, 0.5m-infinity and 0.3m-0.5m.

The 0.5m-infinity is almost as quick as the 135L (which is very fast)!
 
swag72 said:
From what I understand, but could be wrong, the IS won't give you a massive advantage with macro use as ...
Click to expand...

Oh heavens.

...IS is useful always. Never.turn.off.IS.DOESNOTCOMPUTE! :gag:
 
I have non IS and love the lens. Sharp and quick to focus.
 
swag72 said:
Sorry, did my post say that IS wasn't useful?

Did I not mention that it will be useful for other things?
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, it was a joke. relating to other threads here recently. nothing personal against you.
 
EdBray said:
The lens has three AF settings, macro to infinity, 0.5m-infinity and 0.3m-0.5m.

The 0.5m-infinity is almost as quick as the 135L (which is very fast)!
Click to expand...

thats not bad, was the markI nearly as quick?
 
EdBray said:
:lol:
Click to expand...

If different coloured lens caps were also an option then this thread would still be going at Christmas :shake:


Martin, it's time to be descisive....either the ladies non-IS version or the man's one with IS....your choice :thumbs:

Bob
 
if you're going to use the lens for more portrait than macro work, then i would give serious consideration to the 135 f2 also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top