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 12 Jul 2015 (Sunday) 19:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Does the 100 L macro make images pop?

 
jrscls
Goldmember
3,008 posts
Gallery: 91 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Jul 13, 2015 12:45 |  #16

I recently shot a wedding and the 24-70 f/4 IS built in macro function worked great for ring and detail shots. It was nice not needing a lens change during the getting ready shots. When I wanted a larger aperture during the reception, I used the 35 f/2 IS.

I also like tubes on the 135 L for closeups, e.g. flowers. However, if I ever start shooting a lot of macro images, the 100 L will be on the short list.


Nikon Z6, 24-70mm f/4 S, 70-200mm f/4 G VR, 35mm f/1.8 S, 85mm f/1.8 S, FTZ, Flashpoint/Godox Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
vapore0n
Member
200 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jul 13, 2015 12:55 |  #17

Love this lens, my favorite.

IMAGE: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1dUeuYX1t5k/UdoM5a0qGMI/AAAAAAAAKfE/Eze0QWUFA94/s800-Ic42/IMG_0065.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1212
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Jul 13, 2015 14:10 |  #18

jrscls wrote in post #17630129 (external link)
I recently shot a wedding and the 24-70 f/4 IS built in macro function worked great for ring and detail shots. It was nice not needing a lens change during the getting ready shots. When I wanted a larger aperture during the reception, I used the 35 f/2 IS.

I know of two local wedding photogs that have a similar setup. Both are principally one camera shooters where and when possible. One used the a 24-70 2.8 I, the other had the 24-105 F4 IS - both recently switched to the 24-70 F4 IS - and the final reason for both was the 24-70 F4 IS's macro ability and the ability to carry one less lens. I will further add, if you put the 24-70 F4 IS on the 5DSr, the ability to further crop with 50 megapixels would negate the requirement for the 100L for anything but true macro.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,461 posts
Gallery: 1788 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11240
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jul 13, 2015 17:33 |  #19

yamatama wrote in post #17629327 (external link)
So Im treating myself a new lens after a 11 month GAS rehab. I was looking to add another prime to the family after selling my sigma 50 art due to horrible AF issues (bummer because the IQ was great but Im very critical about focus). I'm a wedding photographer and Ive never had a Macro lens. Ive always use creative ways to shoot rings and detail shots but I was thinking of adding the macro feature. Thing is I would also want to use the lens for portraiture and maybe some tight shots in the reception when my shoulders need rest from the 70-200 and need IS for low SS.

So my question is, how does the lens perform for non macro situations? does the lens make images pop like the 135 or 70-200? or Im better off buying another cheap macro + another lens?

Thanks in advance!

Heya,

Well, the 100 F2 and 100 F2.8 are quite fine for portrait.

The 100L gives you the same kind of overall render, but with IS.

How much pop you want is more dependent on you. I find 85mm at F2.8 pops fine when there's no immediately close background. Longer isolates even more. But even 200 F2 with a background right behind the subject will not pop in terms of isolation very much. So you have to put things into context about what you mean by popping. I assume it's the isolation from the background that you're wondering about? But it could also be the overall contrast, color, sharpness, etc (all of which is easily just post work on any lens to do the same).

If you want a telephoto prime and you want IS, and macro, all on one lens, it's the 100L. If you want options, the Tamron 90 F2.8 VC and the Sigma 105 F2.8 OS are the competition.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yamatama
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Jul 13, 2015 18:36 |  #20

I pulled the trigger and bought it.. I remembered all those times in weddings when I wished I had a Macro lens. I will try to make it part of the rotation and see how it does throughout the day. Next purchase will be a fun lens like 50 1.2 or the 85 hahaha, jk :lol:.


Nikon D750, 35 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 24-70 2.8G, 70-200 2.8G
My website www.williamdelacruz.co​m (external link)
FB like page https://www.facebook.c​om/WilliamDeLaCruzPhot​o (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,403 posts
Gallery: 825 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 14062
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Jul 14, 2015 17:03 |  #21

yamatama wrote in post #17630503 (external link)
I pulled the trigger and bought it.. I remembered all those times in weddings when I wished I had a Macro lens. I will try to make it part of the rotation and see how it does throughout the day. Next purchase will be a fun lens like 50 1.2 or the 85 hahaha, jk :lol:.

Good choice on the 100L, let us know how you like it!

The 100L is so damn fun to use, it single handedly gets me out of the house to take photos. I hate to say it, but I think it may have passed the 50L as my favorite lens :)

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7308/10282115186_3d98c593c2_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/gEAw​C3  (external link) It's Tiffany! (external link) by M K (external link), on Flickr


2020: New Year, New Decade, NO G.A.S (Yep, we're giving it another shot!)
Canon/Nikon/Fuji

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YBaCuO
Member
Avatar
50 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Germany
     
Jul 14, 2015 17:12 |  #22

Congratulations!

Here an other example for a poping macro.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,247 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6324
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 14, 2015 20:18 |  #23

if you want the extra pop, zeiss is your answer.

zeiss macro compared to the canon: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=891517

I had the 135L, an older canon macro, and 85L, and traded them all for the zeiss 100. The zeiss doesnt do 1.2 and doesnt do 135mm, however optically, it's very good. Deep contrast, and very clean optics, save the ridiculous amounts of CA for a lens this price. It's no more than the 85L, however it really shouldnt exist.

it's a great lens for portraits/landscapes/m​acro, for me, it was the consolidation that I wanted. I would prefer a 135 macro instead, however, I make due with 100.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
4,012 posts
Likes: 650
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jul 14, 2015 20:49 |  #24

Charlie wrote in post #17631872 (external link)
I had the 135L, an older canon macro, and 85L, and traded them all for the zeiss 100. The zeiss doesnt do 1.2 and doesnt do 135mm, however optically, it's very good. Deep contrast, and very clean optics, save the ridiculous amounts of CA for a lens this price. It's no more than the 85L, however it really shouldnt exist.

The 135L has never been considered a macro. I have the 135L (which closest focus is .9m, the 100L macro goes to .3m). The 135L tends to be a preferred portrait lens over the 100 because of the FL and bokeh. There's pluses and minuses when considering the 100L vs 135L. Both are very sharp, and I find the colors to be similar (when pixel peeping, I've found there's some nice color contrasts with L lenses). I used to have the 100mm USM macro: it's optics are great for a non L and optically isn't much different then the L. It's mainly the hybrid IS that sets the 100L macro apart: Canon developed it to provide better stabilization in macro shots. IMO, it's a toss up as to whether the 135L or 100L is a better portrait lens. I think for wedding photography, the non macro 135mm could still get in close enough for most shots. If you think you will do macro photography, though, and use the same lens for portrait work, the 100L is a great option.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LonelyBoy
Goldmember
1,482 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Likes: 986
Joined Oct 2014
     
Jul 14, 2015 21:00 |  #25

davesrose wrote in post #17631922 (external link)
The 135L has never been considered a macro. I have the 135L (which closest focus is .9m, the 100L macro goes to .3m). The 135L tends to be a preferred portrait lens over the 100 because of the FL and bokeh. There's pluses and minuses when considering the 100L vs 135L. Both are very sharp, and I find the colors to be similar (when pixel peeping, I've found there's some nice color contrasts with L lenses). I used to have the 100mm USM macro: it's optics are great for a non L and optically isn't much different then the L. It's mainly the hybrid IS that sets the 100L macro apart: Canon developed it to provide better stabilization in macro shots. IMO, it's a toss up as to whether the 135L or 100L is a better portrait lens. I think for wedding photography, the non macro 135mm could still get in close enough for most shots. If you think you will do macro photography, though, and use the same lens for portrait work, the 100L is a great option.

I think he meant that he traded an unspecified macro, the 85L, and the 135L (three lenses), not that the 135L is a macro.


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/127590681@N03/ (external link)
I love a like, but feedback (including CC) is even better!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,247 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6324
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 14, 2015 21:08 as a reply to  @ davesrose's post |  #26

I should have been more clear, I had the 135L, and 100 macro as well, didnt mean to say that the 135L was a macro. I got the zeiss for consolidation reasons, I was tired of owning a pair of portrait lenses and a separate macro. For me, the move worked out well. I was afraid I would miss the 1.2, however since the zeiss is very good wide open, I am forgiving of the 2/3's stop. Bokeh and separation wise, the 100 f2 works, however the 135L is a little bit better due to the FL. The 85 certainly does great at closer distances, however, not my style of shooting, as I've always preferred 135 to 85.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
4,012 posts
Likes: 650
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jul 14, 2015 21:27 as a reply to  @ Charlie's post |  #27

Ah, OK...sorry, did seem like you were saying 135L, an older macro camera,... but see now you were referring to another lens. I guess it would be nice that if you're looking for the best range of FL primes, 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm would be best:)


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
Post edited over 4 years ago by amfoto1.
     
Jul 15, 2015 00:28 |  #28

First of all, you should try out a macro lens for your uses, before buying one.

All macro lenses will be slower focusing than your 70-200mm. This is by design... they have what's called "long throw" focus, which emphasizes precision over speed. Maybe they are fast enough for you, maybe not. Having USM and a Focus Limiter helps both the Canon 100mm macros focus faster than some other macro lenses, but they are still not speed demons. You should try before you buy, if at all possible.

I also am not a big fan of macro lenses for portraiture. They are typically too sharp, showing every little flaw of the subject (and no one is perfect except for 17 year olds after a 2 hour make-up session). I'd much rather use an 85/1.8, 100/2 or 135/2 for portrait work. They're all fast focusing, too. The 85/1.2L is a "wedding photographer's dream lens", although like the macros, it's not super fast focusing.

For the level of magnification needed for ring shots, cake details, center pieces, and other typical wedding close-ups your 24-70L should work great. If you wanted a little higher magnification out of it, just add a 12mm or 20mm macro extension tube to the 24-70mm. (The Kenko macro tube set for Canon is a great deal right now... price has come down to $109. A year ago they cost $200... And the individual Canon tubes are selling for $84 for the 12mm and $145 for the 25mm).

Not sayin' that the 100L wouldn't work fine for your purposes... you may like it. Personally I use the 100mm non-IS version a lot for macro work... but not so much for non-macro purposes.

So, I'm just pointing out some other options.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kbColorado
Goldmember
Avatar
1,267 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 768
Joined Aug 2010
     
Jul 15, 2015 13:47 as a reply to  @ amfoto1's post |  #29

LOL ... never heard anyone on POTN say a lens is "too sharp" before .... ever :-) .

You can fix "too sharp" in post if that ever comes up in a portrait, but you simply can not go the other way.


Paul
deep greens and blues are the colors I choose ...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,415 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3964
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Jul 15, 2015 14:00 |  #30

MatthewK wrote in post #17631675 (external link)
The 100L is so damn fun to use, it single handedly gets me out of the house to take photos. I hate to say it, but I think it may have passed the 50L as my favorite lens :)

Ditto! Definitely my favorite lens. Has never let me down.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 16 1.4 - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

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

8,555 views & 13 likes for this thread
Does the 100 L macro make images pop?
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 socrbob
933 guests, 319 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.