Thinking of buying a used Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM..

keenan

keenan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,170
Name
Jacques
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys..

I need a bit of advice on what a suitable price would be I bought one second hand? I know MPB sell them between £250 - £270, but they seem to be going for lower on the auction site.
I recently received a 20% of voucher from this well known auction site so it would be £50 off of £250, which does make it worth using!

Now, my second question..

I wont just be using it for macro, but as a all round lens and I believe the USM is a lot quicker that the "non USM" version or any of the Sigma/Tamron 3rd party competitors?

I had a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 in the past and even though it was amazingly sharp, it was sooo slow to focus.

For my needs, is there a suitable replacement for the Canon?
 
My advice would be to save up and buy the L version
 
I've had the non-L and have the L version now. Optically identical imo but the focusing is improved with the L version and for me was worth it for the build quality / weather sealing.

The original non-L wasn't slow to focus but not that impressive either, i can only guess but it's probably in the ballpark of the Tamron* performance wise.

*edit
 
Last edited:
Sharky said:
The original non-L wasn't slow to focus but not that impressive either, i can only guess but it's probably in the ballpark of the Sigma performance wise.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking for instant super fast focus. Just quick enough so I dont miss the shot..

Do you mean the normal Tamron 90mm or the newer version with the USD focus motor and VC?
 
Last edited:
Normal / older one.

The non-L was ok focus speed wise but like i say not impressive either. It was one of my frustrations with the lens while shooting anything but relatively static portraits.
 
Sharky said:
Normal / older one.

The non-L was ok focus speed wise but like i say not impressive either. It was one of my frustrations with the lens while shooting anything but relatively static portraits.
Click to expand...

You sure?

Most reviews state the focus on the USM is about a second from infinity to macro.. The L version is 0.6 seconds..

The Tamron took about 3 seconds!

Are you sure you are not referring to the "non USM" version rather than the "non-L" version?
 
Last edited:
I had the EF-S 60mm macro, simply excellent lens (y)
 
keenan said:
You sure?

Most reviews state the focus on the USM is about a second from infinity to macro.. The L version is 0.6 seconds..

The Tamron took about 3 seconds!

Are you sure you are not referring to the "non USM" version rather than the "non-L" version?
Click to expand...
I'm not a review and yes i am sure about the lens i owned. The above is my opinion against real world usage and i had the lens 1 or 2 years. The focusing was ok but nothing more and was something i cursed from time to time.
 
I can imagine the very first canon 100mm macro "non USM" version that had the extending barrel would be as slow as the Tamron 90mm as that has the same extending barrel..

Here, at 5:20 you can see a USM vs L focus speed..

That focus on the USM is light years faster than the Tamron 90mm!

View: http://youtu.be/njqTFlMiGLQ
 
I feel like i'm banging my head against a brick wall here. Was i not plain and simple enough in my explanation, twice?
 
Sharky said:
I feel like i'm banging my head against a brick wall here. Was i not plain and simple enough in my explanation, twice?
Click to expand...

Feel free to refrain from posting in this thread if it irritates you!

The video I just posted does have conflicing info in regards to what you are saying!

Which info should I go with?

The video with an example of the info I'm after or your word of opinion which you clearly are adamant on forcing upon me...

Try to stay calm while providing your opinion! If you can't, then maybe you shouldn't bother yourself with it!
 
All I know is that prior to the L coming out, the Canon was always recommended for its focus speed compared to its peers. The Tamrons were claimed to be sharper by some, but no one ever suggested the focus speed was close.

I've got a Tamron, and a nudge more macro work would make me buy a Canon, but i take about 50 macro shots a year.
 
Hi Phil..

Thanks for the info.. I loved my Tamron, but it was the older 272E version, which is newer, but not the quicker USD version. If is fantastic for macro, but pretty bad for anything remotely moving.

Do you also have the 272E or do you by any chance have the USD?
 
keenan said:
Feel free to refrain from posting in this thread if it irritates you!

The video I just posted does have conflicing info in regards to what you are saying!

Which info should I go with?

The video with an example of the info I'm after or your word of opinion which you clearly are adamant on forcing upon me...

Try to stay calm while providing your opinion! If you can't, then maybe you shouldn't bother yourself with it!
Click to expand...
You asked me a question following up my reply, it would of been rude to ignore you. And i am not forcing anything on you, you questioned if i was sure, so i replied. Then after i explained i was sure of my opinion with a year or two's use and expanded on why i thought it you were quick to say 'but look here is a video from t'erweb that says your wrong!'.

In a perfectly static situation the non-L was fine, i did say that "It was one of my frustrations with the lens while shooting anything but relatively static portraits.".
 
Last edited:
keenan said:
Hi Phil..

Thanks for the info.. I loved my Tamron, but it was the older 272E version, which is newer, but not the quicker USD version. If is fantastic for macro, but pretty bad for anything remotely moving.

Do you also have the 272E or do you by any chance have the USD?
Click to expand...
Mines the older version.
 
I had the non IS USM before upgrading to the IS L version and in real life shooting scenarios couldn't find any difference in focusing speed and hardly any difference in IQ (my non IS L must've been a great copy!)
A great portrait lens as well as Macro, and for the price superb value, go for it!
 
keenan said:
Hi guys..

I need a bit of advice on what a suitable price would be I bought one second hand? I know MPB sell them between £250 - £270, but they seem to be going for lower on the auction site.
I recently received a 20% of voucher from this well known auction site so it would be £50 off of £250, which does make it worth using!

Now, my second question..

I wont just be using it for macro, but as a all round lens and I believe the USM is a lot quicker that the "non USM" version or any of the Sigma/Tamron 3rd party competitors?

I had a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 in the past and even though it was amazingly sharp, it was sooo slow to focus.

For my needs, is there a suitable replacement for the Canon?
Click to expand...
Pretty much all macro lenses are relatively slow to focus. They are designed for slow, accurate focus rather than speed.

That said, I wouldn't have thought AF speed on a macro lens would be a deal breaker, when most focusing is done manually?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
That said, I wouldn't have thought AF speed on a macro lens would be a deal breaker, when most focusing is done manually?
Click to expand...

If you use it as a 100mm prime all round lens rather than just macro it does make a difference..

Try photographing an active 5 year old with a slow extending barrel macro lens.. it's a nightmare! ;)
 
keenan said:
If you use it as a 100mm prime all round lens rather than just macro it does make a difference..

Try photographing an active 5 year old with a slow extending barrel macro lens.. it's a nightmare! ;)
Click to expand...
Lol I wouldn't though, I'd switch to my 24-105 ;)

I do use my macro lens for portrait work, but again the AF speed doesn't matter too much. That said, I've used mine (Sigma 105 OS HSM) for my dogs playing in the field and it was fast enough!
 
odd jim said:
Lol I wouldn't though, I'd switch to my 24-105 ;)

I do use my macro lens for portrait work, but again the AF speed doesn't matter too much. That said, I've used mine (Sigma 105 OS HSM) for my dogs playing in the field and it was fast enough!
Click to expand...

With the Sigma, I think the focus speed of the OS version has improved tremendously over the earlier models. As with the Tamron I had, they also had extending barrels and focusing from infinity to macro took about 3 or 4 seconds..

If I had an alternative I would've definitely used it, but I only have a 50mm and an ancient manual Pentacon 135mm (which is my favorite) ;)
 
I'm well chuffed with my Sigma 105mm (f/2.8) and can recommend it - great value for money. While I prefer Canon lenses, I saw in a comparison test it was much cheaper than the Canon and produced better image quality.
 
Just to add - I use my 100mm non L macro to shoot lowlight boxing, and have been pretty impressed with the focussing accuracy in dimly lit venues, where i am shooting at 3200 to 6400 ISO
 
Thanks for the comments guys! I'm gonna buy used and the Canon is much cheaper used than the Sigma, but I'll keep my eyes peeled!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top