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?

 
yamatama
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Jul 12, 2015 19:15 |  #1

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!


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jul 12, 2015 19:18 |  #2

The 100L is so sharp it will cut you. In fact, the only thing people really seem to complain about it is it can be too sharp. There is no effective difference between the non-L and L other than IS. For wedding photography, where you'll want to do macro mostly hand held, then the IS makes a lot of sense. Outside of that, it won't get as much love as some other lenses because it's only 2.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
docholliday_sc001
My hypocrisy goes only so far.
236 posts
Likes: 73
Joined Jul 2011
     
Jul 12, 2015 19:52 |  #3

vengence wrote in post #17629328 (external link)
The 100L is so sharp it will cut you. In fact, the only thing people really seem to complain about it is it can be too sharp. There is no effective difference between the non-L and L other than IS. For wedding photography, where you'll want to do macro mostly hand held, then the IS makes a lot of sense. Outside of that, it won't get as much love as some other lenses because it's only 2.8.

Having owned and used both lenses extensively, even for weddings (when I shot them), the "portrait bokeh" is much more creamy than one would think. Much closer to the 135. For studio and product shooting, it is one of the number one choices to be grabbed.

The sharpness is obviously highest, but there IS a difference between the older USM and the L. The L has more microcontrast and looks more like a 100 Makro-Planar. The IS is pretty much useless at macro range, but for handheld shooting, it works great.

The AF isn't the fastest (compared to the 70-200/2.8L II IS) as most macros are more "precision" when autofocusing. But, it does lock on nicely and is (again) razor sharp. For headshots and ringshots, the sharpness can be biting, but it's always easier to soften in post than to add sharpness that didn't exist.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
15,268 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 8823
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Canada
     
Jul 13, 2015 00:21 |  #4

vengence wrote in post #17629328 (external link)
The 100L is so sharp it will cut you.

I had to keep bandaids in my camera bag :-)


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
InfiniteDivide
"I wish to be spared"
Avatar
2,844 posts
Gallery: 265 photos
Likes: 218
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Kawasaki, Japan
Post edited over 4 years ago by InfiniteDivide. (5 edits in all)
     
Jul 13, 2015 01:54 |  #5

After doing some real world testing I will give you my un-scientific descriptions of my lenses.
My 24L 'pops' the most* with the right sized subject and distance.

My 50L and 100L both wipe the background out wide open and their bokeh is very similar in strength.
(For reference the 135L has come of the best bokeh in a prime.)

I believe part of the 'pop' effect is having a wider FOV that is still blurred out.
Have a calm blurred background draws all the attention to the subject.
And if that subject's distance relative to the framing of the photo is 'interesting' it POPS.

While the 100L does a good job of bokeh and sharpness it has a narrow FOV
"less 'pop' in the overall image because of that narrow view itself.

24L at f1.4



50L at f1.2



I believe this is the most 'pop you can get from the 50L


Here is one of the 100L at f9.5 and the background is no where to be seen.



Based on your needs, I can't* think of a better suggestion than the 100L.
It will give a good blur and is tack sharp.
While the 135L is great for shooting down the aisle, the macro focuses much much closer if needed, for example tableware settings and catered food displays.
With handheld IS to boot I see zero downsides as a prime lens choice.

James Patrus
6D | 16-35L F4 | 24L II | 50L | 100L | |  -> Website (external link) & Gallery (external link)
For Sale:Canon 16-35mm f4 IS l Do you enjoy Super Famicom games? (external link) PM me directly.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yamatama
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Jul 13, 2015 08:34 |  #6

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #17629651 (external link)
After doing some real world testing I will give you my un-scientific descriptions of my lenses.
My 24L 'pops' the post with the right sized subject and distance.

My 50L and 100L both wipe the background out wide open and their bokeh is very similar in strength.
(For reference the 135L has come of the best bokeh in a prime.)

I believe part of the 'pop' effect is having a wider FOV that is still blurred out.
Have a calm blurred background draws all the attention to the subject.
And if that subject's distance relative to the framing of the photo is 'interesting' it POPS.

While the 100L does a good job of bokeh and sharpness it has a narrow FOV
"less 'pop' in the overall image because of that narrow view itself.

24L at f1.4
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nyJE​iH  (external link) Fanta Pear Soda (external link) by infinite_divide (external link), on Flickr

50L at f1.2
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/s4FV​ab  (external link) Urban Offroad Bike (external link) by infinite_divide (external link), on Flickr

I believe this is the most 'pop you can get from the 50L


Here is one of the 100L at f9.5 and the background is no where to be seen.
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pAdK​sz  (external link) Peach-colored flower (external link) by infinite_divide (external link), on Flickr


Based on your needs, I an think if a better suggestion than the 100L
It will give an good blur and is tack sharp.
While the 135L is great for shooting down the aisle, the macro focus much much closer if needed,
as for example tableware setting and catered food displayed.
With handheld IS to boot I see zero downsides as a prime lens choice.


Nice! Thanks a lot for the images! Im 90% convinced on pulling the trigger on this lens, I just dont want to buy it and see myself using it for macro shots only.


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
jrscls
Goldmember
3,008 posts
Gallery: 91 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Post edited over 4 years ago by jrscls.
     
Jul 13, 2015 08:59 as a reply to  @ yamatama's post |  #7

Considering you already own the 70-200 II and 135 L, the only reason to consider the 100 L should be for macro unless you are looking for a lighter weight alternative to the 70-200 at 100mm. The 100 L does well for portraits, but nothing over your existing lenses.

I have owned all of these lenses and now have the 135 f/2 L, which IMO makes images "pop" more than the others, but of course this is somewhat subjective.


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
kingsown
Goldmember
2,838 posts
Likes: 296
Joined Jul 2005
Location: barrow-in-furness
     
Jul 13, 2015 09:00 |  #8

The three shots here do not pop the lights no good ,any fast lens with the right light will pop if you take the shot right


http://barrowdpc.com/c​pg1414/index.php (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
15,268 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 8823
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Canada
     
Jul 13, 2015 09:04 |  #9

jrscls wrote in post #17629903 (external link)
Considering you already own the 70-200 II and 135 L, the only reason to consider the 100 L should be for macro unless you are looking for a lighter weight alternative to the 70-200 at 100mm. The 100 L does well for portraits, but nothing over your existing lenses.

I have owned all of these lenses and now have the 135 f/2 L, which IMO makes images "pop" more than the others, but of course this is somewhat subjective.

That was why I sold mine but I miss it. It was sharp but I lost interest in macro. If I had unlimited funds I would have kept it but had to sell to buy gear I use more often.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1212
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
Post edited over 4 years ago by wallstreetoneil. (2 edits in all)
     
Jul 13, 2015 09:11 |  #10

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!


From a wedding perspective, there is also the issue of time needed to change lens and ability to fit it into your gear while being mobile, etc, etc.

When I look at your listed lenses (24-70II, 70-200II, 135L) then personally I would add either a 24 1.4, 35 1.4 or 35F2 IS on the other end (if you don't already have the low light fast prime area covered.

In terms of does it pop like the 135L at F2 - no it does not - at least not at human size portraits - it is 'only' F2.8 - the 135L, close to the 200F2, gives you that F2 'pop' that the 100L just can't do - unless you are focusing on a subject 18 inches away and then it 'pops' like crazy.

From a wedding hand held rushing around perspective, I would never take off the 70-200 II with IS to put on the 100L with IS - never going to happen. However, when you arrive at 1:30 and have bride and detail shots to do, 1 camera with a 24-70 and the other with the 100L is one of many 'perfect' setups - especially because of the IS / macro abilities - something the 135 clearly cannot do.

From a wedding perspective, I think it would come down to flow - do you want to add it to your flow - if so, it is absolutely perfect at what it does well - but it is a limited use lens (I have it, I use it, I then take it off). I also have the 135L and I do not, for the most part, use the 135L at weddings because I generally handhold and I don't like the ISOs (at least 1/250th SS) I have to use to get tack sharp images with it - however the bokeh and 'pop' with the 135L beats the 100L by miles.

The 135L on a Sony A7rii with IBS however might be interesting.


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
ksbal
Goldmember
Avatar
2,745 posts
Gallery: 374 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 2402
Joined Sep 2010
Location: N.E. Kansas
Post edited over 4 years ago by ksbal.
     
Jul 13, 2015 10:20 |  #11

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!


Very Very sharp, even at wide open 2.8

will work very well for you, if you like the 70-200 - as good or better pop.

below is at f5.
https://photography-on-the.net …94&mg=265650&i=​i151931062

I have to remember NOT to apply my default sharpening on portraits with this lens in LR.

Also... this lens will 'rattle' if you don't turn off the camera and let it get to its default position before taking it off the camera. Just so you know, I had that happen, wondered if I'd broke it, but apparently it is just normal if you are't particular when you take it off the camera. Putting it back on the camera and turning it on - then off 'fixed' it but something to be aware of - an FYI.


Godox/Flashpoint r2 system, plus some canon stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frayne
Member
Avatar
158 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 137
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Chattanooga, Tn.
     
Jul 13, 2015 11:26 |  #12

Here are a couple with the 100mm. It's a great lens.


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


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


The only thing a golfer and photographer needs is more light.
Canon G9/5D/6D/70D Lenses 100-400L IS/17-40L/24-105L IS/100L IS/85 USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frayne
Member
Avatar
158 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 137
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Chattanooga, Tn.
     
Jul 13, 2015 11:29 |  #13

And a couple of macro shots.


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


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


The only thing a golfer and photographer needs is more light.
Canon G9/5D/6D/70D Lenses 100-400L IS/17-40L/24-105L IS/100L IS/85 USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,549 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 299
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
Post edited over 4 years ago by kf095.
     
Jul 13, 2015 12:25 |  #14

Haven't checked this forum for a while. Nothing changed in this world in terms of crappy Sigma AF, it seems.

Anywho, I used cheap plastic Tamron 90 2.8 for portraits, but after realising what our youngest daughter wasn't happy about flash I switched to 100L.
Works really great for newborn in low light, because of IS. Took few good portraits with it. It works as long as kid is calm.
I also it tried with older kids and adults outdoors and yes, you'll get pop-up under good light and correct background.
But... portraits came out crazy, razor sharp. Accuered 50L and it serves me well for indoor, outdoor portraits.
100L sits unused most of the time now.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EricaC
Member
33 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2006
     
Jul 13, 2015 12:25 |  #15

I've had the 100L for a few years, and I LOVE it for non macro! I use it for portraits sometimes, but it doesn't focus as fast as my 70-200, so I don't use it if there's going to be a lot of moving or readjusting of the subject. I just bought my first full frame camera a week ago, so I see myself using it even more now that the focal length is more reasonable for portraits without me backing up too far.

However, for me, my 70-200 is the f4IS version, so the extra stop is something more that makes me want to carry both. I'm not sure I would carry it/use it as often (for non macro shots) if my 70-200 had the same largest aperture. However, for the ability to do macro AND great portraits with the same lens, it is awesome! I would agree with the above poster that the 100L's best use at weddings would be as part of the getting ready setup.




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

8,554 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
942 guests, 314 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.