Canon 100 MACRO f/2.8L IS USM for landscape ?

Sirs,
1. If we use T2i with Canon EF 100 MACRO f/2.8L IS USM for landscape, we have to multiply 1.6 with 100 or not?
2. Have anybody ever tried to use this lens for landscape purpose (certainly in some circumstance, because Macro lenses are made for close-up) ?
3. When 1.6 x 100 = 160, we will get 160mm telephoto lens in cropped body, am I right?

Pls advise. Thank you so much. I am new to photography.

Yes you will have an effective 160mm focal length. Not a general lanscape length but depending on the situation it can be used.

If you shoot landscape with 160mm, you should be creative and know about image composition. If you do, it is great to shoot with a long focal length. Because you have to search for really interesting details and formations for your photo and not only shoot nice landscapes.
Get it and learn Longer focal lenghts will train your photographic eye.

The focal length on the lens doesn't change. When you shoot with APS-C, the only difference is the picture is cropped. You are not closer to the object nor is there any additional magnification. The object appears closer because it is cropped and appears larger. If you take a full frame picture and crop it to the same size as a APS-C picture the object will be the same size.

I'll bet one could shoot landscape pix with just about any lens.

The 100 F/2.8L macro functions just like any other lens will at non-macro distances. While there are some macro lens that can not focus to infinity (or require the removal of adapters), this is not among them. It will work quite well actually as a 100mm lens (160mm effective on crop) and many people use it for non-macro work.

Sirs,
All your guidances are so valuable to my primary study on photography and made me happy. I have been searching for "The Good Lenses" for 2 years now. I found this Canon 100mm standing out.

I should consider to get it pronto, side by side either with Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22.

I would like to thank for all your replies once again.

gasrocks wrote in post #15879022
I'll bet one could shoot landscape pix with just about any lens.

I shot this at 155mm with my 70-300L.....

ed rader wrote in post #15880534
I shot this at 155mm with my 70-300L.....

How much "foot zoom" did that take?

Seriously, Nice photo though!

Why not? I shoot with a 5D, but the idea is the same. Your 100mm is my 160mm, that's all. This is the 100mm f/2.8 Macro non-L IS:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/13931652@N00/6​183605343/

vengence wrote in post #15880550
How much "foot zoom" did that take?

Seriously, Nice photo though!

thank you! I shot that from the top of tower 5. it's about a 300' parabolic climb up the cable .

ed rader wrote in post #15880593
thank you! I shot that from the top of tower 5. it's about a 300' parabolic climb up the cable .

Damn Ed, thinking about that climb gives me the heebie-jeebies! I'm not a fan of heights! I always wondered who got to climb those cables..... I frequent the SF/Fremont area quite often and know how high you are up - that's only 300' from the bridge not even counting the water distance correct?

I took this with a 100 macro on a 500D, which I think is a T2i.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …cott-s_photos/4845805362/

as long as you're getting this lens mainly for macro use, it's a good choice...but as mentioned, any lens can be used for landscapes...

ed rader wrote in post #15880534
I shot this at 155mm with my 70-300L..

I just looked at your shots the other day...super jealous...I got to go to the top of the golden gate bridge once, but that was right when I had just started to get into photography...wish i could do that now