30mm L vs 100mm L

I'd like to see a comparison between these two as I am considering purchasing one or the other next month. Any decent comparisons? What are the pros and cons?

tnick771 wrote in post #18082919
I'd like to see a comparison between these two as I am considering purchasing one or the other next month. Any decent comparisons? What are the pros and cons?

The two focal lengths are quite different and are usually used for rather different things.

What focal lengths are you using now and on what camera?

SkipD wrote in post #18082925
The two focal lengths are quite different and are usually used for rather different things.

What focal lengths are you using now and on what camera?

Currently shoot on a crop frame SL1 with:

10-22mm
18-55mm
40mm
50mm
75-300mm

so you're looking at something like an equivalent focal length of 50mm for the 30L

and 160mm for the 100L

that makes it a seriously difficult comparison if we are just going to assume you take a wide variety of pictures. Probably the best advice would be to look at how often you shoot at/near each focal length and start your decision making from there.

for the 30, having an equivalent field of view near 50 would be great for environmental portraits and just random shooting.

with the 100 macro on a crop, you would benefit greatly from a small MFD. Headshots would be nice. Macro too if you could hold the subject within the frame from a distance.

Canon makes a 30mm lens?

Really, the two focal lengths are so far apart that any comparison would be meaningless. On a crop frame camera, I'd have little use for either of these focal lengths as a prime lens. If you are interested in getting both focal lengths in one lens, consider one of the 24-105 offerings.

I have never heard of a Canon 30mm L (or non L)

The 100L is first and foremost a macro lens, and I'd suggest that if macro photography is something you are really interested in. It can do anything else that a 100mm f/2.8 lens can do, but I'd only buy it if your prime interest is macro.

There is no 30mm L lens that I know of. If you are looking at a 35mm lens (or whatever), my first suggestion would be to use the lenses you have to evaluate how those focal lengths will work for you. Look at what you shoot now and what focal lengths you are using. Then go from there.

Bassat wrote in post #18082943
Canon makes a 30mm lens?

oh derp. i didn't even catch that, guess i was thinking 35.

tnick771 wrote in post #18082919
I'd like to see a comparison between these two as I am considering purchasing one or the other next month. Any decent comparisons? What are the pros and cons?

tnick771 wrote in post #18082932
Currently shoot on a crop frame SL1 with:

10-22mm
18-55mm
40mm
50mm
75-300mm

I still don't understand what you're looking for. You can use your existing lenses (the 18-55 and the 75-300) to compare 30mm against 100mm. That comparison that you can do will help you decide between the two focal lengths for whatever purpose you have in mind.

I hope you're thinking of actual focal lengths and not "35mm equivalent focal lengths" (in other words, using the "crop factor" math which is absolutely not needed here). Post #4 was referring to focal lengths modified with crop factor math.

I agree with SkipD, and I'd go a step further. {brace self to be blasted}

I don't think crop factor is EVER an issue. If one shoots full frame only, the entire discussion is moot. If one shoots aps-c only, there is nothing to compare TO. If one shoots both (I did for quite a while), one will use each lens according to how it performs on the body chosen for the job. No matter which camera you are shooting, even if you own several formats, don't you just grab the lens required for the job?

Bassat wrote in post #18083040
I agree with SkipD, and I'd go a step further. {brace self to be blasted}

I don't think crop factor is EVER an issue. If one shoots full frame only, the entire discussion is moot. If one shoots aps-c only, there is nothing to compare TO. If one shoots both (I did for quite a while), one will use each lens according to how it performs on the body chosen for the job. No matter which camera you are shooting, even if you own several formats, don't you just grab the lens required for the job?

There is nothing to 'blast'. The crop factor was important when digital cameras were pretty new because most photographers were totally immersed in 35mm film systems. The crop factor is still important to anyone who owns multiple formats, and to a lessor extent it is useful to understand for conversations about lenses and AOV in places like this.

But for most people who have one camera, you don't really need to know a lot about it.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18083054
There is nothing to 'blast'. The crop factor was important when digital cameras were pretty new because most photographers were totally immersed in 35mm film systems. The crop factor is still important to anyone who owns multiple formats, and to a lessor extent it is useful to understand for conversations about lenses and AOV in places like this.

But for most people who have one camera, you don't really need to know a lot about it.

Thanks for the kindness. I shot 35mm film from the early '70s until 2009(?) when I got a 500D. I never even noticed the crop factor. I think that was due to only shooting zooms on the digital 500D. My last film camera was a Yashica FX3-S2K (IMHO, the best 35mm film body ever made), and my primary lenses were Series 1 28-105 and a Series 1 70-210. If you're always zooming anyway, actual FL isn't often considered.

I'm gonna agree with other posters, I don't understand what you're asking, looking for.

Although there is no 30mm L, there is a Sigma 30 1.4 Art that is very nice and no where near as big as a 35mm (which is bigger because it is designed for FF cameras).

Here's the easiest way to determine for yourself: set your 18-55 to 35mm, now tape the zoom ring so it doesn't move (gaffers tape or a wide rubber band). Now do the same with your 75-300 at 100mm. Now go around shooting with those two like that for an ENTIRE day. By the end of the day, I promise, you will know which focal length you want to purchase next. Keep in mind, you can get both

As a different perspective....

After playing with consumer lenses, OP wants to get his first L lens, and is trying to figure out which one should be the first.

100L was mine. 100L adds macro and portrait/subject isolation, while the 35L adds improved low light capability, to the OP arsenal. Both, especially the 35, are heavy for their size and when mounted on a SL1, will be front heavy, Yes, there are non-L and non-Canon options. Yes, getting your first L is like a gateway drug.

Generically speaking, the 35 will get more use, the 100 will be more interesting.

BrickR wrote in post #18083253
I'm gonna agree with other posters, I don't understand what you're asking, looking for.

Although there is no 30mm L, there is a Sigma 30 1.4 Art that is very nice and no where near as big as a 35mm (which is bigger because it is designed for FF cameras).

Here's the easiest way to determine for yourself: set your 18-55 to 35mm, now tape the zoom ring so it doesn't move (gaffers tape or a wide rubber band). Now do the same with your 75-300 at 100mm. Now go around shooting with those two like that for an ENTIRE day. By the end of the day, I promise, you will know which focal length you want to purchase next. Keep in mind, you can get both

I've seen this method suggested before. It may work... a little. You can get the focal length experience, but certainly not the aperture. My guess is both these lenses are f/4.5 or f/5 at those setting. Not f/1.4. Huge difference.

lilkngster wrote in post #18083362
As a different perspective....

After playing with consumer lenses, OP wants to get his first L lens, and is trying to figure out which one should be the first.

100L was mine. 100L adds macro and portrait/subject isolation, while the 35L adds improved low light capability, to the OP arsenal. Both, especially the 35, are heavy for their size and when mounted on a SL1, will be front heavy, Yes, there are non-L and non-Canon options. Yes, getting your first L is like a gateway drug.

Generically speaking, the 35 will get more use, the 100 will be more interesting.

Different? Yes. I'll just add my perspective on L-primes. I buy them when there is no alternative. I'd love a 24 II. The 28 1.8 is close enough for me, and saves me about $1,000. 35IS is about $800 cheaper than 35L II, and has IS. The 85L is not worth an 85 1.8 + $1,000. For those lenses, I have acceptable alternatives and will (likely) never own the L.

I do have a 135L and 200 2.8L II. To the best of my knowledge, there are no alternatives to these lenses. They are dirt cheap for what you get.