Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM

lizzy23

lizzy23

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,167
Name
Liz
Edit My Images
Yes
You pretty much can't go wrong with this lens, if macro is your big thing. It also doubles as a pretty hot portrait lens, too. If you're going to use it for macro, then probably best to start thinking about lighting. There are plenty of threads about making macro diffusers to go with flashguns.

This was the first f/2.8 lens I bought and I soon became hooked on wide apertures.
 
mr_pants said:
You pretty much can't go wrong with this lens, if macro is your big thing. It also doubles as a pretty hot portrait lens, too. If you're going to use it for macro, then probably best to start thinking about lighting. There are plenty of threads about making macro diffusers to go with flashguns.

This was the first f/2.8 lens I bought and I soon became hooked on wide apertures.
Click to expand...

Wait until you get lenses with sub f/2 apertures, 2.8 seems really slow lol
 
Raymond Lin said:
Wait until you get lenses with sub f/2 apertures, 2.8 seems really slow lol
Click to expand...

Wait until you get down to 1.2, then its game over... ;)

THe 100mm macro is a brilliant lens, have used it many times though it rarely sees the light of day with th work I do unfortunately :( Well worth the money though :)
 
I have the IS version of this lens. It is superb. It sounds almost as much time on the camera as the 24-105. I would definitely recommend it. The results are spectacular.
 
Very sharp, but never used mine and sold it to get something more useful (which hardly gets used either)
 
had one, sold one, will by another one. great lens. exceptionally sharp. great colour/contrast. very fast/accurate focussing.

i didn't use mine for macro, i used it mostly for portraits and it's a great lens for that. one thing i really miss is the close focussing distance.

you won't be disappointed.
 
Totally agree - excellent for Bees etc!
 
lizzy23 said:
Well have decided to upgrade glass, and upgrade the body at a later date, am seriously considering this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-100mm-2-8-Macro-Lens/dp/B00005KHRX:)

The reviews are pretty good, but wondered if anyone here has any comments on experience on this lens with my 400d body:)
Click to expand...

It's a macro lens, fairly obviously, and very good it is too - for macro. But depite what others may say, it's not much use for anything else.

I hardly used mine, and swapped it for a set of tubes on a 70-200L, which not only makes a pretty good macro, but does loads of other things extremely well.
 
I echo above.
I bought one as i thought "i need something else to try". This lasted a few weeks, then i got bored of doing macro as there are only so many times you can try the same shot..
I then used it for some portraits, but found the 50mm a better option for that so the 100mm became unused and eventually got sold.

Mit be worth looking at the 60mm f/2.8 macro as that is a much better length in terms of versatility.
 
Thanks everyone some food for thought, my idea was to use it for Macro, but to also use it for some action shots of the dogs, i don't like to be on top of them when i take photos of them and they are often on top of me when i squeeze the trigger, i think i will hire one for the Leeds meet and see how i get on with it
 
HoppyUK said:
But depite what others may say, it's not much use for anything else.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I sold my Sigma 10 - 20 because I never used it, together with the Sigma 105 so I could buy the Canon 100
It occurs to me that lens choice is about what interests you but also how you see things. I like looking at other people's landscapes but I don't really take them. I'm interested in isolating things and focussing attention on detail, and for that this lens is superb. Terrific bokeh, excellent colour rendition etc, etc.
 
I have one, and its a great lens... macro is nice and sharp and its a great portrait lens as well...

well recommended! :)
 
Greywolf said:
That's interesting. I sold my Sigma 10 - 20 because I never used it, together with the Sigma 105 so I could buy the Canon 100
It occurs to me that lens choice is about what interests you but also how you see things. I like looking at other people's landscapes but I don't really take them. I'm interested in isolating things and focussing attention on detail, and for that this lens is superb. Terrific bokeh, excellent colour rendition etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it depends what interests you. My 100 F/2.8 is one of my most used lenses, and I manily use it for macro. It does get used for pets and portraits now and again too and I find it pretty good for that.

If youre interested in macro photography this will be a great lens, and may find some extra uses as a bonus. If its mainly for portraits you may be better off with something else
 
HoppyUK said:
It's a macro lens, fairly obviously, and very good it is too - for macro. But depite what others may say, it's not much use for anything else.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

I agree that it isn't the best lens if you want a medium-telephoto for non-macro, but not that "it's not much use for anything else".
 
SamHH said:
Why do you say that?

I agree that it isn't the best lens if you want a medium-telephoto for non-macro, but not that "it's not much use for anything else".
Click to expand...

Well, put it this way, if you have a mid-range zoom which most people do, then for anything except macro you're going to pick that up in preference pretty much every time. And for the OP wanting to shoot dogs running around then a fixed focal length lens is going to be restricting.

But if macro is the priority, then that Canon is excellent. I also had the 60mm EF-S version and that is a really sweet little lens and absolutely razor sharp, but I found it a bit short for macro.

As an aside, I used a Kenko 300-Pro 1.4x extender on the Canon 100mm and that worked very well. But that's when I thought a set of tubes on a 70-200L zoom could do pretty much the same job for what I do, which it does. But let me say right there that I am not seriously into hyper-critical really close 1:1 macro. It's maybe an alternative, depending.
 
HoppyUK said:
Well, put it this way, if you have a mid-range zoom which most people do, then for anything except macro you're going to pick that up in preference pretty much every time. And for the OP wanting to shoot dogs running around then a fixed focal length lens is going to be restricting.

But if macro is the priority, then that Canon is excellent. I also had the 60mm EF-S version and that is a really sweet little lens and absolutely razor sharp, but I found it a bit short for macro.

As an aside, I used a Kenko 300-Pro 1.4x extender on the Canon 100mm and that worked very well. But that's when I thought a set of tubes on a 70-200L zoom could do pretty much the same job for what I do, which it does. But let me say right there that I am not seriously into hyper-critical really close 1:1 macro. It's maybe an alternative, depending.
Click to expand...

No doubt a zoom lens is sometimes more useful, but I have zoom lenses that cover 100mm and I still sometimes use the 100mm macro lens when I don't need to focus closely.

I think the lens is question is very useful for things other than macro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top