100mm Macro vs. 100mm prime: Difference????

[OtieM]

Can someone explain the difference between

EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus
and
EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Autofocus


Okay, first, I've got a grasp on primes. Actually love them and despite two recent, quite expensive "L" lens purchases, I think I'm a "prime" guy. Second, I believe I understand "macro." If I am correct, that's close up shooting, buttons, coins, bugs, product shots, etc. Extreme closeups, extreme detail.

Now, I also see where some use the "Macro" lens for portraits. This is where I get really lost. Any and all help appreciated.

[Jim G]

The macro lens will focus from infinity to very close, allowing you to fill the frame with very small objects - down to life size. The autofocus is slower than the 100mm f/2 and it's a full stop slower (f/2.8 rather than f/2).

Both would theoretically work for portraits - the macro lens is entirely capable of focusing further away than macro distances. I haven't used either though I have seen portraits taken with both

[Jarrad]

Just consider the 100 Macro to be a conventional 100mm 2.8 lens with the ability to focus close enough for 1:1 magnification.

Some people say the focus is slower than other lenses. I find that with the focus limiter set to 0.48m that there is little or no difference in casual use. Some say there is a difference in AF speed and accuracy when it comes to tracking high speed movement. I've never used it for such a purpose so I can neither confirm nor deny the claim.

You can use the 100mm Macro for any sort of photography you wish.

Macro:


Landscape:


Portrait:


Anything:

[Reaperman]

Originally Posted by Jarrad

Just consider the 100 Macro to be a conventional 100mm 2.8 lens with the ability to focus close enough for 1:1 magnification.

Some people say the focus is slower than other lenses. I find that with the focus limiter set to 0.48m that there is little or no difference in casual use. Some say there is a difference in AF speed and accuracy when it comes to tracking high speed movement. I've never used it for such a purpose so I can neither confirm nor deny the claim.

You can use the 100mm Macro for any sort of photography you wish.

Macro:


Landscape:


Portrait:


Anything:

That 100mm Macro is still on my wish list. Just can't afford it at the moment.
Very nice shots though.... you make me want it even more.

Reaperman

[poah]

100mm macro can focus closer than the f2 100mm
100mm macro has slower focusing speed than the f2 100mm
100mm macro is 1 stop slower
100mm macro has a lot less CA
100mm macro is more expensive

[ed rader]

the 100 f2 has lousy MFD but lightning fast AF plus it's a faster lens that is fully usuable wide open....which made it the better choice for me .

ed rader

[angryhampster]

Ed, what's its MFD compared to the 85? That was one thing that I didn't like about the 85 as well.

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by angryhampster

Ed, what's its MFD compared to the 85? That was one thing that I didn't like about the 85 as well.

i think they are the same.

ed rader

[liza]

I own both of them, and aside from the focal length, they're two completely different lenses. The macro is slow focusing but allows closer focusing and produces near L quality images. It's my butterfly, flower, and wedding ring lens. The f/2 prime is very fast focusing, has IQ comparable to the 85mm prime, and has been a wonderful basketball lens. I don't use either of them for portraiture, though. I prefer to use the 85 1.8, the 70-200L, and the 28-70L for that purpose.

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by liza

I own both of them, and aside from the focal length, they're two completely different lenses. The macro is slow focusing but allows closer focusing and produces near L quality images. It's my butterfly, flower, and wedding ring lens. The f/2 prime is very fast focusing, has IQ comparable to the 85mm prime, and has been a wonderful basketball lens. I don't use either of them for portraiture, though. I prefer to use the 85 1.8, the 70-200L, and the 28-70L for that purpose.

for staged portraits the 100 f2 is my lens of choice...but that's on the 5d. i've also used it on the 20d out of necessity but i would have much preferred the 85 1.8.

ed rader

[red hot sheep]

I have the 100mm macro and it's an amazing lens. If you think you even might want to dabble in macro photography, I would reccomend it - as Jarrad has shown it is useful for all types of photography. It is also very sharp wide open.

However, if fast AF is critical (ie. shooting sports where it may be the deciding factor), I would say go for the 100mm f2. But unless you need this, I would say go for the macro.

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by red hot sheep

I have the 100mm macro and it's an amazing lens. If you think you even might want to dabble in macro photography, I would reccomend it - as Jarrad has shown it is useful for all types of photography. It is also very sharp wide open.

However, if fast AF is critical (ie. shooting sports where it may be the deciding factor), I would say go for the 100mm f2. But unless you need this, I would say go for the macro.

f2 is also a stop faster...that is another huge factor .

ed rader