Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I was debating selling this lens, just to profit on it.

Bought it for $250 on craigslist, and I could get ~$450 on ebay.

HMMMM.....

One I did a couple of weeks ago, but just processed today.

FF users, i'm thinking of dumping the 135L for either the 100/2 or 100/2.8. will i be missing much, if anything going from the 135 to either of the 100mm choices?

Cl!ckFoto wrote in post #7985120
FF users, i'm thinking of dumping the 135L for either the 100/2 or 100/2.8. will i be missing much, if anything going from the 135 to either of the 100mm choices?

Totally different lenses, so I would say yes. With this I mean that if you do like the 135L, rather get the 100 macro in addition, not as a replacement.

If you don't like the 135 mm FL, you may like 100 mm, which is the traditional portrait lens FL on FF. In that case, you may want to replace it with either of the two 100s, or maybe even both, or the 200 F/2.8L and one of the 100 macro or 100 F/2. The 200 is a great lens for candid portrait photography on FF.

Personally, I like both the 100 and 135 mm FLs, and they serve slightly different purposes to me, although they do have a lot in common, subject wise.

Kind regards, Wim

thanks Wim. I've owned the 200/2.8 before and loved everything about it so i might pick that up instead although the macro feature is really neat and i'd love to have that lens. it's not really a question of which focal length is better or more suitable, i was mainly leaning towards IQ between the 3 (135, 100x2).

Cl!ckFoto wrote in post #7985384
thanks Wim. I've owned the 200/2.8 before and loved everything about it so i might pick that up instead although the macro feature is really neat and i'd love to have that lens. it's not really a question of which focal length is better or more suitable, i was mainly leaning towards IQ between the 3 (135, 100x2).

Have you tried using an extension tube with the 135L yet? It is not as convenient as a dedicated macro lens, but does work very well, indeed. I even use it with extension tubes plus extender, for even larger magnifications.

I reckon the 100 macro is a better lens than the 100 F/2 is, unless you need the extra stop. This based on the 85 F/1.8 rather than the 100 F/2, which supposedly perform very similarly. I also reckon the 135L is better than the macro, except for macro, although as mentioned it will do nicely with tubes too.

Kind regards, Wim

thanks for the input wim. decisions, decisions.

Yet another flower shot (sorry).

400D, ISO 200, 1/500 @ f/2.8

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

few macros from yesterday

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​564315554/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​564315702/

Cotmweasel, really like the first 2. Kinda bummed that I haven't seen any of those this year.

BluewookieJim wrote in post #7991695
Cotmweasel, really like the first 2. Kinda bummed that I haven't seen any of those this year.

yeah, I went down to the Dallas arboretum. they seem to have everything (that can survive here anyway :P )

PhatheadWRX wrote in post #7990068
few macros from yesterday

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/frenchbrown/3​564315554/



more recents on my flickr

Great shot - amazing detail! Was that focus stacked?

Cotmweasel wrote in post #7991522

Great shots as well! What kind of flower is that? It's got unusual shaped petals.

pridash wrote in post #7992878
Great shots as well! What kind of flower is that? It's got unusual shaped petals.

Thanks, Its called "Osteospermum" or South African Daisy. not sure why they do that though.