Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Nov 2012 (Wednesday) 17:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

 
zacreth
Member
34 posts
Joined Jun 2011
     
Nov 28, 2012 17:33 |  #1

So I have a question and it's probably not a fair match up. I have a need for a macro lens and I found the 100mm 2.8L and was impressed with the quality of close up photos. But if I'm going to spend that much money why can't I just double it and get the 70-200?

I don't know if the macro lens has some special feature for close up photos, but I can't believe the 70-200 couldn't do the same thing right?

Could an expert please explain why any lens couldn't technically be a "macro" lens?

Thanks for your time




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Nov 28, 2012 17:42 |  #2

70-200 has a minimum focus distance of about 140cm I think, and the 100L is about 30cm. So no, you cannot get nearly as close with the 70-200 as the 100L - unless you use extension tubes or closeup filters.

The lens is amazing:

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8482/8227568731_c03e26dc4a.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpockett/822756​8731/  (external link)
Ava (external link) by Daniel Pockett (external link), on Flickr

50% crop:
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8065/8227571503_2ac378de15.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpockett/822757​1503/  (external link)
Ava's eye (external link) by Daniel Pockett (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8201/8227571091_d5440210f1.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpockett/822757​1091/  (external link)
35L (external link) by Daniel Pockett (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8063/8228635588_b1083ee2bb.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpockett/822863​5588/  (external link)
35L (external link) by Daniel Pockett (external link), on Flickr

1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zacreth
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
34 posts
Joined Jun 2011
     
Nov 28, 2012 17:49 |  #3

Ah so that's a big difference between the two... the minimum focus distance. So I would end up buying both then it seems since i need something for closeup photography for menus and such...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Nov 28, 2012 18:03 |  #4

zacreth wrote in post #15301646 (external link)
Ah so that's a big difference between the two... the minimum focus distance. So I would end up buying both then it seems since i need something for closeup photography for menus and such...

You could use any other lens with extension tubes, and that would get you closer. But you are limited with your focal range - if you think you will be shooting macro often enough, then a dedicated macro lens is the way to go. And the 100L is such an awesome lens.


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pepponeskie
Member
Avatar
233 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: The Way North
     
Nov 28, 2012 18:22 as a reply to  @ kobeson's post |  #5

the above post is right.

Actually the advantage of a macro lens is the minimum focus distance and its magnification. You can have the option of using a standard zoom lens with IS feature and couple it with a Raynox DCR-250. The result will be, you have a zoom macro lens with more than 1:1 magnification with IS. But, the minimum focus distance will be closer to the subject.

You can have the option of using the 24-105 f4 IS or 70-200 f4 IS or any zoom lens with IS, then coupled with the Raynox DCR-250. I have tried the MP-E 65mm with raynox and the result was somewhat like a microscope.

You can google and flickr about Raynox DCR-250. :)


500 shots? Keep 5!
Gears (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Nov 28, 2012 18:39 |  #6

I use the 70-200 IS II with Canon's 250D close up filter and get good results. The range of focus is limited but I get 1:1. I don't need to remove the lens from the camera either.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Nov 28, 2012 18:43 |  #7

+1 on the Raynox DCR-250 (or for even more mag, the MSN-202). Most cost-effective way to very high mags, but won't give you nearly the sharpness of the 100 macro. BTW, the 100 macro is also a fantastic medium telephoto and portrait lens...


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Nov 28, 2012 19:09 |  #8

I own a Raynox DCR 250 also (mentioned briefly closeup filters in my 1st post) and yes, it is a handy little clip on filter. As with other non dedicated macro options though, your focal length is limited. I often found I couldn't compose the shot I was wanting perfectly, swapping lenses over and clipping the Raynox on - I eventually saved for the 100L.

And yes, it is also a great portrait lens - although I haven't used it for portraits since buying my Sig 85. But the 100L is a decent short telephoto lens for any purpose - portrait/landscape etc.


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
allan7d
Hatchling
Avatar
4 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Location: stoke on trent
     
Nov 29, 2012 02:32 |  #9

Hi Guys well l have stated how pleased l was with my NEW canon 100mm macro is lens,,, had it for two weeks but then l had a problem with it. when it was on the 7D body it would lock up the whole camera nothing yes nothing would work. i took it to a Canon repair centre here is stoke on trent UK. and soon as l told the guy what was going wrong its was though he knew all about it. I left it there and with been a CPS member the leans was repaired within 3 days,,,,, it had to have a whole new focusing drive installed, well l have a few L lens but this is the first time l have ever come across anything like this.

regards
allan




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sorarse
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Kent, UK
     
Nov 29, 2012 05:49 |  #10

A macro lens is useful for filling the frame with very small objects. If your subject isn't particularly small, I would suggest that the 70-200 will be more than adequate for your needs.


At the beginning of time there was absolutely nothing. And then it exploded! Terry Pratchett

http://www.scarecrowim​ages.com (external link)
Canon PowerShot G2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zacreth
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
34 posts
Joined Jun 2011
     
Nov 29, 2012 09:59 |  #11

I'm looking towards the lens primarily for food dishes and drink glasses and a new product we just made and patented. It just seems none of the lenses work for what i need so I was thinking of getting either the 100L macro or save up for the 70-200.

Just for information I'm using a 60D and have only 2 lens right now. A 55-250 I'm selling right now and a Sigma 50mm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tpatana
Senior Member
463 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
     
Dec 30, 2012 23:10 |  #12

I'll use this thread to ask instead of making new one, as my question is almost same.

So I already have 70-200 2.8 IS II. If I get 100L macro, would I use it or not? What's the max magnification on the 70-200?

What about other situations (portrait, landscape etc.), when it would make sense to switch to 100L instead?

Or would it be just extra weight in my bag, that gets seldom time on the camera?


Have: Many cameras with some Ls
Kendo.Photography (external link) / Kendo@Facebook (external link) / TeroPhotography.com (external link) / Tero@Facebook (external link) / CF card Speedtest on my gear (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,624 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 339
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Dec 30, 2012 23:15 |  #13

zacreth wrote in post #15301589 (external link)
...

Could an expert please explain why any lens couldn't technically be a "macro" lens?

Thanks for your time

It is easy once you learn what real Macro lens is. Take your time...


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Dec 31, 2012 07:22 |  #14

tpatana wrote in post #15425991 (external link)
I'll use this thread to ask instead of making new one, as my question is almost same.

So I already have 70-200 2.8 IS II. If I get 100L macro, would I use it or not? What's the max magnification on the 70-200?

What about other situations (portrait, landscape etc.), when it would make sense to switch to 100L instead?

Or would it be just extra weight in my bag, that gets seldom time on the camera?

There's no way we can tell if you would use the 100 or not. If you need the ultimate in sharpness at that focal length, or at 1:1 magnification, then that's the way to go. If you usually want the versatility of the zoom, then that's the way you'll go. Personally, I like shooting macro (bugs and flower closeups) and some indoor sports, so I think I would use both regularly.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Dec 31, 2012 07:26 |  #15

zacreth wrote in post #15301589 (external link)
So I have a question and it's probably not a fair match up. I have a need for a macro lens and I found the 100mm 2.8L and was impressed with the quality of close up photos. But if I'm going to spend that much money why can't I just double it and get the 70-200?

I don't know if the macro lens has some special feature for close up photos, but I can't believe the 70-200 couldn't do the same thing right?

Could an expert please explain why any lens couldn't technically be a "macro" lens?

Thanks for your time

Technically, a true macro lens is one that will do 1:1 magnification or more, which the 100L will. The 70-200L's max is .17 according to one source I just checked. The 100L is also sharper than the 70-200, though not by a lot.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

12,422 views & 0 likes for this thread
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is larawink
784 guests, 211 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.