EF 100/2.8 macro IS and EF 100/2

Does it make sense to keep both of these lenses? I have a friend that has both, and swears it makes perfect sense. I think he feels that the 100/2.8, being a macro, is not very capable in other areas. Opinions?

yes it does, they are different tools.

same question can be asked whether or not to keep the 85 1.8 + macro or 135 f2 + macro. The macro can get close to either lens....

something like the Zeiss 100 MP is much more appealing in specs. 100mm f2 + 1:2 macros. I would have kept it if it werent so heavy.

It depends a bit on how he is using the 100f2. If he's simply using it as a portrait lens then no. But if he uses it for anything where focus speed is a factor then having both can be critical. I probably wouldn't have gone with 2 100 mm lenses (I have the 85 1.8 and 135L) but the 100f2 is a good lens.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17803406
It depends a bit on how he is using the 100f2. If he's simply using it as a portrait lens then no. But if he uses it for anything where focus speed is a factor then having both can be critical. I probably wouldn't have gone with 2 100 mm lenses (I have the 85 1.8 and 135L) but the 100f2 is a good lens.

i agree. it all depends on how youre using each lens. I as well have the 85/1.8 and the 135/2

Horses for courses.
If you do Macro with a bit of landscape/ portraiture then the Canon 100 F2.8 L is the tool for the job. If your interests lie in the portraiture genre or general/landscape uses then the 100 F2 is the lens of choice.
The 100 F2, with extension tubes, will do a good job at macro photography but it is a compromise - the 100 F2.8 L isn't. The 100 F2.8 L IS will take great portraits but the 100 F2 can take better ones. For landscapes both are excellent.
Decide on your priorities and then buy - they are both great lenses - just a little different in their uses/aperture.

Heya,

Depends on uses.

I had three 85mm lenses at one point, for different purposes. I eventually reduced it down to an 85mm F1.4 and a 90mm F2.8 VC macro. They're different enough for me to warrant both. But I didn't keep my 85mm F1.8, because it just didn't do enough that my other two were not already handling.

The 100 F2.8L and 100 F2 are similar in many ways, but ultimately I'd keep the 100L over the 100 F2 for a "general" lens. To me, the aperture difference isn't enough to warrant losing the IS and the L optics. The focus speed is not lightning on the 100L, so if you're doing critical action, that's where the 100 F2 comes in as it has very fast AF. If I needed a lens with fast, really fast, autofocus, the 85 F1.8, 100 F2 and 135L are the ones I'd go for in those ranges. For other purposes, I'd probably just go down to one lens and keep the 100L.

I went through it as mentioned above and let my 85 F1.8 go, and kept my 90 F2.8 VC. It doesn't focus as fast, but it focuses fast enough that it keeps up with a 2 year old that runs in low light, so I realized I didn't need the faster AF ability of the 85 F1.8 and let it go. My 85 F1.4 is significantly different, and manual focus, so that one I keep.

Comes down to use.

Very best,

For me, no.

John above said it best - "The 100 F2.8 L IS will take great portraits but the 100 F2 can take better ones.". I have used both lenses and this is correct. For macro and anywhere you need IS, the macro is obviously the best. The F/2 is without a doubt better for portraits. The only lens better for portraits in this price range is the 135mm F/2.

Heya,

The 100 F2 is not better for portraits. That's assuming one has to have the thinnest depth of field and be used outdoors with wide distance backgrounds for it to be a "better portrait lens" and that's just way short sighted in a genre like portraiture.

Very best,

That's what I was getting at - you just put it better!

MalVeauX wrote in post #17803789
Heya,

The 100 F2 is not better for portraits. That's assuming one has to have the thinnest depth of field and be used outdoors with wide distance backgrounds for it to be a "better portrait lens" and that's just way short sighted in a genre like portraiture.

Very best,

Having that F2 option does make it better for portraits. It is an option to shoot f2, not a requirement of course.

it's like comparing the 85f1.2 to 85f1.8, the stop is fairly significant if you're going after a certain look.

No, you don't always have to have the thinnest depth of field. Most of the portraits I take with this lens are stopped down to 2.8 or F/4. I would say only 30-35% of the portraits I take with the F/2 lens are wide open, but when F/2 is needed, it's there. You can't say the same about the macro which only goes to 2.8. To me, more options are a benefit. When I have the F/2 lens with me, I can shoot at every aperture that the macro can provide, plus 2.2 and 2.0. This option makes it a better and more versatile portrait lens. I think most professional portrait photographers would agree.

Charlie wrote in post #17803804
Having that F2 option does make it better for portraits. It is an option to shoot f2, not a requirement of course.

it's like comparing the 85f1.2 to 85f1.8, the stop is fairly significant if you're going after a certain look.

That's not a fair comparison there is more than just max aperture separating those two lenses.

I have the 85/1.8, 100L and 135/2. I'd probably trade the 100/2 in for the 85/1.8 if I had just bought the 100L just to differentiate a little.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17803886
That's not a fair comparison there is more than just max aperture separating those two lenses.

Like the price tag...