Which one? 100 2.0 or 100 2.8 macro?????

Trying to decide which to buy next-

100 2.0 or 100 2.8 macro

Someone please help me decide.

Thanks in advance

Shoot a lot of macro?

or do you need the 2.0 for lower light?

What type of pictures will you take (what will you use the lens for)?

I have never shot macro before but I like that style. I would also like speed to shoot sports in low light or indoors. Tough decision!!!! Why can't Canon or someone else make a really fast macro lens?????

I'd get the 85/1.8 first and see how it works on indoors/sports. No real reason to get the macro if you do not do a lot of that. 85 can do a fair job at macro (with an ext tube or two.)

Really boils down to whether you want to start doing any serious macro work. Both are fast, sharp, lenses. Both are very good at portraits. One excells at macro, the other is one stop faster.

Get the 100 F2 and a set of Kenko extension tubes and you will have the best of both worlds and only spend about $40.00 more than if you bought the 100 Macro.

If you are really interested in macro then get the macro lens, it beats the pants off mucking about with tubes. A macro lens is a very handy walkabout lens also, allowing a wide range of magnification.

If you really need to be doing sports then perhaps the f2 is for you, however I would think a fast zoom may be better.

Both lenses are excellent. I have the 100 F2.0 and it's part of my indoor sports arsenal (I only have 3 lenses (they are all primes) and I shoot sports with each). It's a great indoor or outdoor sports lens depending on your style, where you sit, etc. Even if you don't shoot sports it's an outstanding portrait lens and great for all around use (again depending on how/what your needs are).

The 100 2.8 macro is an outstanding lens. In most cases, it will not fulfill your indoor sports needs as well as the 100 F2.0 (my opinion). I always look for speed and sharpness in an indoor sports lens. Other than that it's a hard lens to beat.

Both lenses are sharp.

WildWolf wrote in post #2071928
Why can't Canon or someone else make a really fast macro lens?????

Macro lenses need to have a small front end because working at such close distances you don't want the lens itself blocking out alot of light. Hence macro lenses generally arn't faster than F2.8. Also for macro photography smaller appertures are the "order of the day" due to the very small DOF encountered at these magnifications, as such faster lenses are not normally required.

It may be worth pointing out that the 100mm macro's focus is v. slow ( deliberately so to insure acurate focus ) this would not be suitable for sports and action events.

You really need to decide which is more important to you Sports or macro? Or buy both. The only compromise is the the normal 100/85mm and a set of tubes.

Dellboy wrote in post #2076002
Macro lenses need to have a small front end because working at such close distances you don't want the lens itself blocking out alot of light. Hence macro lenses generally arn't faster than F2.8. Also for macro photography smaller appertures are the "order of the day" due to the very small DOF encountered at these magnifications, as such faster lenses are not normally required.

It may be worth pointing out that the 100mm macro's focus is v. slow ( deliberately so to insure acurate focus ) this would not be suitable for sports and action events.

You really need to decide which is more important to you Sports or macro? Or buy both. The only compromise is the the normal 100/85mm and a set of tubes.

Thank you!!!!! This is the answer I was looking for. I can not deal with slow focus. 100 2.0 (or 85 1.8 ) for me.

I bought the 100mm macro and I love it! I have used it more for telephot/portrait that I have for macro. It is extremely sharp.

gasrocks wrote in post #2072016
I'd get the 85/1.8 first and see how it works on indoors/sports. No real reason to get the macro if you do not do a lot of that. 85 can do a fair job at macro (with an ext tube or two.)

The 85 1.8 has a minimum focusing of 2.8 feet. Is that necessarily that great for macro??

WildWolf wrote in post #2071928
Why can't Canon or someone else make a really fast macro lens?????

Very fast lenses are often a compromise in optical performance. Macro lenses are designed to be well corrected for close distance work as well as normal working distances.

The upshot of these two design drivers means that a macro lens is normally a stop slower than a conventional lens give or take a bit.

Secondly, although a conventional lens can be used with tubes and give very good results at close distances a real macro lens will generally give better IQ at those close distances.

NB that tests like photozone are no guide to close focus performance as they are done at something like 55 times the focal length or more and the lens may be quite different close in.

I'd also just say that the 100/2 is much more compact that the macro variant.