85L and 100L Macro

jwcdds wrote in post #13561931
I have the 85, 100 and 70-200. Does that make me super redundant?

No offense. Just meant if the op has the 70-200 mkii I don't know how much more useful the 100 is going to be besides using it for actual macro pictures. I guess in his situation I don't think I would get the 100L. If I were going to get a macro and it sounds like our frequency of macro is similar, I would get the non L to save a few hundred.

If you do a lot of macro stuff then the 100L is worth getting, but if you're like majority of the people who bought the macro lens just to shoot the ants in the backyard and a few flower close up once a blue moon, then it can become quite redundant when you can get away with using extension tubes on your 70-200 MK2. The 85L is a great portrait lens, if you don't need or use f/1.2~f/2.0 and prefer to stop down to f/2.8~ then it can also be redundant as well.

out of curiosity why did you sell your 35L?

Hmm...if its for me....

85L will be primarily for portraitures and video that features a lot of scenes which need bokeh. I won't use it for travel since its too heavy and not sealed for weather unless I'm considering to use it for serious street portraitures.

70-200 f2.8 to me is a travel lens that doesn't compromise on IQ and low light. Its a good zoom and its arguably the best IQ travel zoom. I will remove other lenses to accomodate this for travelling and with a TC, its a good wildlife lens too.

The 100 macro L i will use it for macro, travel, portraits and street.

I would say they are quite mutually exclusive, since I won't use the white zooms for street but I will use it for wildlife and won't use the non macro lenses for macro work. They are good in different purposes and I will buy all 3 (in fact I'm planning to) if $$$ and time permits.

Of course we can always argue that a 28-300 will do them all...mediocrely.

jwcdds wrote in post #13561931
I have the 85, 100 and 70-200. Does that make me super redundant?

Make me the third person who has all 3! Different lenses for different subjects and purposes.

Each lens is a world unto itself. The 85L we know, but the 100L IS is a multiple trick pony with it's newest gen IS, focus limiter, fast AF, tripod or monopod foot, hey, it's versatile. You can whip around with the 100L and have a high keeper rate or trudge for your art with the 85L I do both, may even have both in my bag at the same time.

I also forget about a lens I have for a while, then take it out and delight again in the reasons I bought it for, even explore new uses. How boring to line up lenses by purpose, when each has it's own unique character.

I have a Sigma 85mm 1.4 and the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro

I use the 100mm for detail shots, rings, and macros.

I also have the 70-200mm.

So I guess that makes me 4!

ben805 wrote in post #13562090
out of curiosity why did you sell your 35L?

I love the lens but it was part of a clearing out of sorts. I am trying to cover as many bases as possible with the fewest amount of lenses. I understand myself well enough to know that I can't help but carry all my gear all the time, just in case. Therefore, the less gear that does the most is best......for me. I realize that this requires compromises, which I hate, but given that I am not a pro and don't really want to be, I'll have to suck it up.

I spend a lot of time and money on racing and cars, etc and having another car sitting in a bag in the house makes me feel funny.

I don't now how much stock to put in online reviews but the 50L gets bad reviews for optical quality, even though people here seem to love it. I really like the 50mm length but the 1.4 had some serious CA and if the L isn't much better, I can't buy it with a clear mind.

So I was thinking about the 85L instead and the fact that I have no macro lens. I really don't know how to achieve my goal, especially when there is no firm goal......Lol, I also think about getting a TS17, a 600L, etc..... I want to take pics of everything but I just don't have time. . And there is no way I am carrying a 600 around all the time!

24-70 is a good quasi macro lens, focuses very close. 100L is for people who seem to think that 100 non-L macro isn't good enough just because it doesn't have IS.

I think the 70-200 is a great macro lens. Add exstension tubes and it's even better.

Higgs Boson, you are pretty sure it is there, but you can't put your finger on it.

On a recent trip to Spain, I carried 8 lenses, 2 bodies, tripod, monopod and a notebook plus the little stuff in a Lowepro Pro Trekker 300 AW, weighing in around 15 kilos, but I also took along a Lowepro Fastpack 200 that takes a body, 2-3 lenses, a flash and a compartment for backpack stuff for walking around much lighter. This way I had a selection, but didn't always have to tote it all. I use the Fastpack the same here locally, just packing what I think I might use plus one, and If I find I don't have something I get creative and make do.

Your stated quandary is 85L or 100L. I have both and use both, they are quite different. I wouldn't part with the 85L for its characteristics, even if it sits around for periods, and I wouldn't part with the 100L for its characteristics and functions which are damn handy.

Now if you have both, either get some bag discipline, or keep the 100L cause it is handiest for the track, IS, macro and all.

I shoot cars too

5D2+100L

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

John_T wrote in post #13563944
Your stated quandary is 85L or 100L. I have both and use both, they are quite different. I wouldn't part with the 85L for its characteristics, even if it sits around for periods, and I wouldn't part with the 100L for its characteristics and functions which are damn handy.

Now if you have both, either get some bag discipline, or keep the 100L cause it is handiest for the track, IS, macro and all.
5D2+100L

What characteristics and functions are you referring to? Is the 100L wide open as sharp and contrasty as the 135L wide open? If so, I want one.

100L is sharper. But it doesn't do f/2.0.

These are two totally different lenses used for different purposes...

I've got both, they're very different lenses. The only thing in common in them is they both fit on Canon cameras.

rick_reno wrote in post #13566302
I've got both, they're very different lenses. The only thing in common in them is they both fit on Canon cameras.

Are portraits taken with a 100L as incredibly sharp as the 135L?