Canon 100 f2.8 macro.....opinions anyone??

[roanjohn]

I am itching to add a macro lens on my arsenal..........

After doing my research, it seems that the Canon 100 f2.8 macro is the best of the bunch.

I don't want to rush and purchase without consulting people from this forum.

Opinions?? Examples??

My few concerns.............
1. I've heard that the focus speed is slow.
2. Do I need a ring flash to take good macro shots??
3. How close can you get to the subject with this lens??
4. Is 100 a good focal length for taking macro shots?? what about 50?? or 180??

In any case............thanks for any input.

Ro1

[Scottes]

1) Macros seem to be slow.

2) No. Most people don't like ring flash because the lighting is flat. Take a look at Lumiquest UltraSoft or one of their softboxes. I use the Ultrasoft and it's pretty nice, though I have a 420EX and wish I had a 550.

3) 1 foot from sensor plane. So about 7" working distance (at 1:1).

4) It's OK, IMHO. I wish I had a 180mm. The Canon 180mm is crazy priced. A friend got the Tamron 180mm and it seemed like an awesome lens, though I never got a chance to test it. But it really depends on what you're shooting.

[roanjohn]

Thanks Scottes.

I am also looking into the new Sigma macro...........

I've never tried Sigma so I'm kinda hesitant.

Ro1

[abel]

i am also interested in the 100mm macro from canon... i need to get the long zoom lens first... hehe

[Scottes]

Thanks Scottes.

I am also looking into the new Sigma macro...........

I've never tried Sigma so I'm kinda hesitant.

I've got the Sigma 105mm Macro. Very well built, very nice pictures. But the AF is so slow it's just about useless. And all these Sigma rechipping and poor support topics really make me wish that I had gotten the Canon. But now, I'd get the 180mm Tamron in a heartbeat.

[roanjohn]

Scottes - Tamron huh?? My only gripes with Tamron is thier color rendition, not as good as a Canon IMHO. This is from my experience with the 28-75 f2.8. And I only shoot JPEG>

Ro1

[PacAce]

I am itching to add a macro lens on my arsenal..........

After doing my research, it seems that the Canon 100 f2.8 macro is the best of the bunch.

I don't want to rush and purchase without consulting people from this forum.

Opinions?? Examples??

My few concerns.............
1. I've heard that the focus speed is slow.
2. Do I need a ring flash to take good macro shots??
3. How close can you get to the subject with this lens??
4. Is 100 a good focal length for taking macro shots?? what about 50?? or 180??

In any case............thanks for any input.

Ro1

As always, the answer you're looking for depends on what kind of macro work you want to do most of the time.

For example, if most of your macro work involves stamps and coins, etc, then you want something like a 50mm which will let you get very close, within a couple of inches from the subject. With inanimate objects, focusing speed really isn't an issue. AAMOF, you would probably even set the lens of manual.

However, if you're going to be shooting little shy critters, then a longer lens that'll let you shoot from a distance would be more appropriate. And, if these critter like to zig and zag about a lot like bees do, then you really want something that can focus fast enough to keep up with the subject.

:)

[DaveG]

1. I've heard that the focus speed is slow.

The only reason to be concerned with this is if you need to use this lens as a regular 100 as well as a macro. I have the non USM version and the AF with this lens IS slow. But with macro photography I find that I need to focus manually anyway. I mean how does the AF know that you want to focus on the edge of the flower, rather than the middle? So fast AF in this lens is more or less moot to me.

2. Do I need a ring flash to take good macro shots??

Sometimes a ring flash can be useful but their origin was with the Medical Nikkor macro lenses. The were designed to give a shadowless flash which was incredibly important if you were a dentist looking to photography teeth for teaching or research purposes. In the 80's ring flashes were the basis for a lot of overdone fashion photography.

In any case the ring flash light can turn into a one trick pony. But I find that one of the stengths of the 100mm Canon macro (especially on my 10D) is that I'm far enough away from the subject to use reflectors to push some light into the scene. Small twist up reflectors are cheap, light and portable, and will help make an interesting lighting ratio if used correctly.

3. How close can you get to the subject with this lens??

You can focus to 1:1 with the 100mm macro. That means that if the subject is a centimeter long in real life then it'd be a cm long on the CMOS. You don't need an extension tube to make this happen, which means that you can still focus to infinity without having to swap off the tube.

4. Is 100 a good focal length for taking macro shots?? what about 50?? or 180??

The 100 is great focal length as discussed above. The 50's primary usefulness (at least to me) was for copying small two dimensional objects, like other photographs. Well now $75 will give you a much better way to copy this kind of stuff and that's with a lowly 600 dpi scanner. The 180 would be good too, but I can see more problems with camera shake with that focal length and the slow shutterspeeds that often come with macro work. It's also be a LOT more expensive than the 100.

[JZaun]

I had a sigma 50mm macro and was not happy with it.. Focus very slow and I had to get too close for macro shots. Got the Canon 100mm macro and love it. I use it for normal and close up work and wouldn't change a thing !! As far as pic quality,, go to my site and see flowers.. All but a couple taken with the 100... and they are sized for the web. also all bug shots are with the 100..

JZ

[ron chappel]

The canon 100 macro sure is the best of the bunch but the sigma,tamron,etc macro's of similar focal length also are extremely sharp!

Do you want one of the sharpest lenses made or one that's plenty sharp?Yeah,tough question :D Not an issue for me because i got a bargain on a 2nd hand canon 100 (non usm).If i had to pay retail i would look very hard at the other brands


1. I've heard that the focus speed is slow.

I sold my non usm version recently and did some focus speed tests for a potential buyer.I was focusing from about 1.5m-8m in lowish light(indoor -room lights) The 18-55 kit lens was less than 1/3rd of a sec,28-80usm=1/3rdsec, 50/1.8= 1/2<sec,macro100 =0.8sec
Of course the usm version is much quicker i've heard

2. Do I need a ring flash to take good macro shots??

Either natural light and (usually) long shutter speeds or some kind of flash
You will be using very small apertures to try to get some DOF so you'll need lots of light from somewhere


3. How close can you get to the subject with this lens??

At closest focus about 7" working distance (both usm and non usm versions).Magnification is 1:1 -i.e you will fill the frame with something 24x35mm.On a digital body that will be even smaller!




4. Is 100 a good focal length for taking macro shots?? what about 50?? or 180??

50mm is abit short as you have very little working distance and tend to scare any insects-check out the specs at canon
The 180 is the best fro working distance of course but most consider the 100mm the best compromise-and it also makes a good portrait lens on a film camera!I found it a little long for that purpose on digital,the 50mm would be better in that case

[DanielM]

I'd recommend it. I take plenty of flower shots, but still haven't progressed to reflectors or ring-flashes. However, I'm pleased as punch with a few photos I took the other day with it in cloudy late afternoon light:

Raspberries (http://www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3744)

Aperture 4.0 on each photo.
Shutter speed 1/40 on the close-up, 1/80 on the other
ISO 100
MLU
No crops. Slight post-processing.

[Steveo31]

Me likes the 180 and 100. I don't see why you should be in AF anyways. I think if you have the flash off to the side and maybe some light from the other side, it should be good. Those ringlights are good, but debateable.

[roanjohn]

Thanks for the replies guys!!!

So to summarize:

1. Yes!!! The 100 f2.8 macro is highly recommended.
2. Focus is slow...........but this is the norm with macro lenses.
3. The ringlight flash is not necessary. Better use available light / reflectors..........or softboxes.
4. The 100 mm focal length is the most versatile focal length as it allows you a good distance from your subjects and also is a nice length for portraiture...............Also a good compromise between the 50 (too short) and 180 (too long and can cause motion artifact.)

So I guess that pretty much sums it up.

Ro1

[roanjohn]

WOW!!! LOok at these Macro's with the Sigma 105 f2.8 EX macro!!!

Photos from Richard Armstrong/Pbase supporter:

http://www.pbase.com/image/31081221/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/31081951/large.jpg

Sorry CDS!!!

But this Sigma is a performer!!!

Now I'm more confused than ever :cry:

Ro1

[polloloco81]

Thanks Scottes.

I am also looking into the new Sigma macro...........

I've never tried Sigma so I'm kinda hesitant.

I've got the Sigma 105mm Macro. Very well built, very nice pictures. But the AF is so slow it's just about useless. And all these Sigma rechipping and poor support topics really make me wish that I had gotten the Canon. But now, I'd get the 180mm Tamron in a heartbeat.

A general rule of thumb is to not use auto focus in macro photography anyways, especially insects. So whether auto focus is slow or not is pretty irrelevant.

[jonnyhorizon]

i am very pleased with the canon 100
i have only had it a week or so but i am doing much better than my old method of close up filters on a 50
here are two i took earlier this week

http://www.johncastor.com/canon%2Dforum/columbine-CRW_5058-web.jpg

http://www.johncastor.com/canon%2Dforum/yellowCRW_5175-web.jpg