About to buy EF 100mm f2.8 Macro. Good idea?

[krisgel]

Hi,

I'm new to this and will be buying a 20D which I will use for product shots for dietary supplements (from the size of a chapstick tube to a size of large can of Chunky soup) to be used on my e-commerce site.

I want the pics to appear with the clarity and image size as the product shots at www.landofnod.com (http://www.landofnod.com/)

After some research, I am strongly considering buying the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro lens for these product shots.

Is this lens a good choice for this kind of work? Is their a better solution?

Thanks so much.

[psk4363]

The Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro lens produces images of stunning quality up to 1:1 (life-size). In fact it should have a L designation after it because of the quality it produces. Combined with a 1.4/2 x converter and/or extension tubes the magnification can go way past 1:1.

I would recommend this lens unreservedly and attached to a 20D will at least equal the images on the web-site you mention. Just make sure that the lens is new with USM - older non-USM lenses do not have internal focussing and the overall length of the lens can increase substantially. Stick to new and you won't go wrong.

Barry

[Dante King]

Why would you want a 20D and this lens to shoot for the web, unless you were going to use it for other things. You could get off much more inexpensively if you wanted to shoot for your e-commerce site.

[Adam Hicks]

And does the 1:1 hold true on a 1.6x crop factor camera or should the new 60mm Macro USM be considered. It should be released within 2 weeks.

Adam

[ScottE]

The 100 mm macro lens would be a great lens if you were shooting for a printed catalogue with big pictures. For images that are going to be displayed on the web it produces much more resolution than you would need. You wouldn't be able to see the difference from a picture taken with the kit lens.

However, it is a great lens and very desirable if you want great resolution in large prints.

Scott

[krisgel]

The 100 mm macro lens would be a great lens if you were shooting for a printed catalogue with big pictures. For images that are going to be displayed on the web it produces much more resolution than you would need. You wouldn't be able to see the difference from a picture taken with the kit lens.

However, it is a great lens and very desirable if you want great resolution in large prints.

Scott

Hi Scott,

I will be photographing products as small as a tube of chapstick and I want to be able to fill the frame. I don't think that the kit lens could do this. Also the images will be 4" x 6" or even 5" x 7" when a customer clicks to enlarge image. If you look at www.landofnod.com (http://www.landofnod.com) you can get and idea of size and resolution that I am going for.

[krisgel]

Why would you want a 20D and this lens to shoot for the web, unless you were going to use it for other things. You could get off much more inexpensively if you wanted to shoot for your e-commerce site.

I also want to take up creative photography as a hobby and have equiptment that is capable of producing quality pictures.

[Dante King]

Thought so, but just checking. Why not go for a 24-75 by tamron zoom. With a flash and tripod this should yeild great results and allow for some added hobby shots.

[DionM]

For close-ups you need a dedicated macro.

The Canon is a great choice. If you want to save some bucks, the Tamron SP90 or Sigma are also available.

I always believe in get the biggest and best quality image to start with, and go from there. You can't go wrong with it. You may want to consider a ring light or something too, if you are serious about good macro shots.

[krisgel]

Thought so, but just checking. Why not go for a 24-75 by tamron zoom. With a flash and tripod this should yeild great results and allow for some added hobby shots.

Hi Dante,

I'm new to this, so forgive me, but wouldn't a 24-75 zoom not have the ability to nearly fill the entire frame of an object the size of say a postage stamp? I need a lens with enough magnification to do this.

BTW, I was also considering getting the Tamron for general purpose in addition to the macro.

[ScottE]

Hi Scott,

I will be photographing products as small as a tube of chapstick and I want to be able to fill the frame. I don't think that the kit lens could do this. Also the images will be 4" x 6" or even 5" x 7" when a customer clicks to enlarge image. If you look at www.landofnod.com (http://www.landofnod.com) you can get and idea of size and resolution that I am going for.

It is a lot cheaper to get a set of extension tubes for the kit lens if all you want is to shoot 5x7 inch pictures that are to be viewed on a computer monitor. The computer monitor does not have enough resolution to show the added detail available from the macro lens.

Your next post answers your own question. You don't want to get the lens just for takiing product shots for the web. You want to do creative photography. When you start challenging your photographic limits you will want the best quality lenses you can get and the Canon 100 mm macro lens is a good choice.

Scott

[Andy_T]

First of all, the Tamron is 28-75. The Canon 24-70/2.8 L or the Sigma EX 24-70/2.8 go down to 24 mm on the wide end.

It is a great lens and gives wonderful quality (better than the Sigma). It is also a real bargain for about $ 350 (a lot cheaper than the Canon 24-70 L).

It also has a 'Macro' designation meaning that it can focus up close (but it is NOT a 'real' macro lens). It should be very much possible to get a chapstick to fill the frame (or at least get a very high resolution picture with some crop applied). You need a true macro lens like the 100/2.8 macro to fill the frame completely with a small bug or else.

So my suggestion would be to get the kit lens (to have the wide angle covered in decent quality for $100) and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 as standard lens for what ever you want to do in creative photography..

You can still add the Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro if those two lenses should not be sufficient for your requirements. If you get the 100/2.8 Macro as only lens, it is a great lens, but you will be *very* limited, as it will give you the same field of view as a 160 mm lens on film. Also, as the lens has a 450$ price tag, you might want to try out the other alternative first.

Best regards,
Andy

[krisgel]

First of all, the Tamron is 28-75. The Canon 24-70/2.8 L or the Sigma EX 24-70/2.8 go down to 24 mm on the wide end.

It is a great lens and gives wonderful quality (better than the Sigma). It is also a real bargain for about $ 350 (a lot cheaper than the Canon 24-70 L).

It also has a 'Macro' designation meaning that it can focus up close (but it is NOT a 'real' macro lens). It should be very much possible to get a chapstick to fill the frame (or at least get a very high resolution picture with some crop applied). You need a true macro lens like the 100/2.8 macro to fill the frame completely with a small bug or else.

So my suggestion would be to get the kit lens (to have the wide angle covered in decent quality for $100) and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 as standard lens for what ever you want to do in creative photography..

You can still add the Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro if those two lenses should not be sufficient for your requirements. If you get the 100/2.8 Macro as only lens, it is a great lens, but you will be *very* limited, as it will give you the same field of view as a 160 mm lens on film. Also, as the lens has a 450$ price tag, you might want to try out the other alternative first.

Best regards,
Andy


Hi Andy,

I'm going to get both the 100mm macro and the 28-75 Tamron. I have a big interest in creative macro photography, so the macro lens will be put to good use between the product shots and creative shots. The Tamron should provide me with excellent versatality for other creative work. Luckily my budget allows for this.

[TammieO]

You'll like the 100m macro alot.

[flyfisher]

The 100 macro is a great lens. you will like it.

[Reminisce]

I just recieved this lens a couple weeks ago and have fallen in love with it. It is my 5th lens and my favorite, finally dethroning my Tamron 28-75 and my 50mm. USM is incredible, the lens is fast and sharp as a tact, and full time manual is something I never thought I'd enjoy.

[Jackal]

I dunno...

For taking shots of things like chapstick maybe even the kit lense is good? Here...I grabbed my chapstick out of my pocket, put it down, picked up my 350D with kit lense and took picture. Maybe it's not that great. (should use a smaller aperature to make sure the whole thing is in focus but it was just a quick shot heh)

Fills the whole frame I'd say.

:p

[krisgel]

I dunno...

For taking shots of things like chapstick maybe even the kit lense is good? Here...I grabbed my chapstick out of my pocket, put it down, picked up my 350D with kit lense and took picture. Maybe it's not that great. (should use a smaller aperature to make sure the whole thing is in focus but it was just a quick shot heh)

Fills the whole frame I'd say.

:p

Jackal,

Pretty good I must say. I would prefer a little better depth of field though. Did you have to crop the picture a great deal?

[Jackal]

I barely cropped it at all. I cropped it just a tad little bit since there was so much waste of space at the top and bottom since the object is long and not tall.

And yeah like I said I would have stopped down the aperature some more but I didn't feel like bringing out the tripod :p

[Adam Hicks]

Just use the 100-400L on a tripod at 400mm f13 about 6 ft. from the chapstick. It's just that easy. :)

I will say that the 10-22 at 22mm is amazing how close it can focus and with such great clarity... but it's no macro. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the Tamron 28-75 from a Macro standpoint. I had both but have sold the 100mm because I didn't use it enough for macro and my 100mm is covered already. Waiting on the new 60mm Macro to arrive.

Adam

[Dante King]

I say get the tamron SP90mm macro and that will save enough $$$ to get a nifty fifty (well damn close)!! LOL Tamron has a rebate on, comes with hood, nice lens pouch and a 6 year warranty. This lens stacks up pretty damn close to canon's 100mm macro.

[johnbs]

For close-ups you need a dedicated macro.The Canon is a great choice. If you want to save some bucks, the Tamron SP90 or Sigma are also available.


I agree with Dion - the Tamron won at both 90/100 and 180 on optical quality against Canon and Sigma on these tests:

http://orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

I think the Tamron has been updated since this test.

I have the Tamron 180/3.5, which produces wonderful pictures, but I now wish I had bought the 90/2.8 instead and kept the extra money!

John

[Todd Jacobsen]

Hi,

I'm new to this and will be buying a 20D which I will use for product shots for dietary supplements (from the size of a chapstick tube to a size of large can of Chunky soup) to be used on my e-commerce site.

I want the pics to appear with the clarity and image size as the product shots at www.landofnod.com (http://www.landofnod.com/)

After some research, I am strongly considering buying the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro lens for these product shots.

Is this lens a good choice for this kind of work? Is their a better solution?

Thanks so much.

The 100mm Macro is a GOOD LENS. You would not be doing a disservice to your lens collection by purchasing it. If your focus now is macro photography, it is an excellent selection.

The fact that OTHER lenses can "accomodate" macro photography does not, in any way, lessen the 100 Macro as a good selection.

[Barb42]

I have a macro setting on my 28-135 IS and I have had really good luck with it - to a point. The 100mm 2.8 just arrived last week and its amazing. I have tubes and close-up lens. Anyone used those in combination with the 100mm? What kind of results.