Canon 100 macro

May look into this for my next lens.

I know it can be used as a 100mm lens as well as macro but I have a question about this.

Considering the lens is built for macro. If you were to compare it to a standard 100mm prime in the same price range how would it compare. Does the changes made to cater for macro degrade the 100mm when used as a standard lens such as for a portrait or even landscape shot?

the 100 macro is a VERY sharp lens, at macro and normal focusing distances. the only advantage the 100 F2 would have is the extra light, and faster focusing. the 100 macro is no slouch in that department though either.

yep, it's good for anything you throw at it.

The 100mm macro isn't a great portrait lens because it's so ridiculously sharp that it picks up on every pore, pimple, and blemish of your subject. However, it is still an excellent, VERY sharp lens.

AirBrontosaurus wrote in post #2182445
The 100mm macro isn't a great portrait lens because it's so ridiculously sharp that it picks up on every pore, pimple, and blemish of your subject. However, it is still an excellent, VERY sharp lens.

ehh...i wouldnt necessarily say that's bad. for people with good skin, it makes them all the much better. for those that done, there's photoshop!

The 100mm macro is one of my favorite lenses. I'm sort of a "sharpness freak" and its the sharpest in my bag. I think its a great portrait lens.

If you need to soften the image for portrait work, I'd use a softar, nylon stocking, vaseline or some other filter to do it, or with postprocessing in CS2.

It's a great lens that will work for just about anything except sports. Because the focus range is so long (and fine), the AF takes longer to go from one extreme to the other.

Mark

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #2182608
It's a great lens that will work for just about anything except sports. Because the focus range is so long (and fine), the AF takes longer to go from one extreme to the other.

Mark

great lens, just a bit slow on the AF at times.

The extra versatility of this lens over the 100mm f/2 would swing the deal for me - besides, I really do want a macro anyway.

For portrait use, a judicious bit of work in photoshop can make even the most leathery wrinkled skin look better.....failing that a good slop of vaseline on a filter...

I love my 100mm macro, so sharp. I'd recommend this lens even if you never ever use it as a macro, it's just that nice.

I own the 100 F2.0. I use it mainly for sports and it's great. It also functions excellent for general purpose use if the focal length is in your zone.

I don't own the 100 macro, but in all the thousands of threads I can remember reading, I can't honestly say I've heard anything negative about it. It's an outstanding lens and one of those lenses I wouldn't even think twice about buying if I was in the market for what it has to offer.

Someone mentioned it before, that one of the biggest differences is speed and focus. Not many shoot action with the macro (at least not indoor fast action).

kidpower wrote in post #2183473
I own the 100 F2.0. I use it mainly for sports and it's great. It also functions excellent for general purpose use if the focal length is in your zone.

I don't own the 100 macro, but in all the thousands of threads I can remember reading, I can't honestly say I've heard anything negative about it. It's an outstanding lens and one of those lenses I wouldn't even think twice about buying if I was in the market for what it has to offer.

Someone mentioned it before, that one of the biggest differences is speed and focus. Not many shoot action with the macro (at least not indoor fast action).

My wedding photographer used the 100mm f/2.0 and a D60 for all of our wedding candids, and it was an awesome combo. If I didn't use my 70-200mm f/2.8 so much for sports this lens may have been on my list, especially after seeing how much I love the 100mm FOV on my 30D.