it's official, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Phrasikleia wrote in post #8765463
Yes, a prime lens is any lens that is a single focal length (that is, it's not a zoom lens). This particular lens is the only prime lens Canon makes shorter than 200mm that has IS. It's also a macro lens, so it can do very close focusing.

Hope that answers your question.

[Edit: just noticed your signature, in which you have this new lens listed already, along with some other primes. So now I'm confused. Surely you know the definition of a prime lens, and you already own the lens in question, so I must have misunderstood your question.]

The 2.8 Macro is ordered (as of last Tuesday), I just wanted to clear up my relatively new understanding of lenses.

I've only been using DSLR's for a month so some stuff needs repeating for it to sink in. I wasn't sure if it being a Macro made it 'less' of a prime lens.

Almost as if it lost something because it was Macro. I have the 135mm L and it's superb and was hoping the same from the 100mm too.

Gel wrote in post #8765517
The 2.8 Macro is ordered (as of last Tuesday), I just wanted to clear up my relatively new understanding of lenses.

I've only been using DSLR's for a month so some stuff needs repeating for it to sink in. I wasn't sure if it being a Macro made it 'less' of a prime lens.

Almost as if it lost something because it was Macro. I have the 135mm L and it's superb and was hoping the same from the 100mm too.

You amassed a kit like that in a mere month??!!! Wow.

Goodness no, the macro part of the equation means it's more of a lens, not less. The only difference might be that it is optimized for close subjects instead of for telephoto. But my experience with macro lenses is that they are the sharpest lenses you can get for any use.

Great review theveed.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #8765533
You amassed a kit like that in a mere month??!!! Wow.

Goodness no, the macro part of the equation means it's more of a lens, not less. The only difference might be that it is optimized for close subjects instead of for telephoto. But my experience with macro lenses is that they are the sharpest lenses you can get for any use.

Wow could be one word for it.

I'm planning to set up a studio next year and am a firm believer in making sure I learn with the best tools. Then the only thing making bad photos will be me.

It may seem like a lot of kit but my way of rationalising it is that they hold their value well and it's all tax deductable.

Most of my lenses were bought secondhand too so I won't take that initial new to used hit.

I bought some macro rings the other day and tried them on my Sigma 30mm and the 135mm L and wasn't very impressed, apart from not understanding what thickness ring goes with what lens.

I just received mine a few minutes ago. The newest version of IS I've used is the 70-200/2.8 IS, and the new system is noticeably better. Just from doing a few test shots around the house, I can see it makes a HUGE difference in the macro range, which is going to be very useful. I can see why people might think the lens seems a little cheap, but I don't get this impression. You get used to the new L-series design styling pretty quickly, and it still has a fair heft to it.

The IS unit does sound quite different from the ones on the other lenses I've tried. Instead of a "clunk" when it engages and disengages, it's more like the sound of the lens aperture stopping down (try using DOF preview to hear what I mean). When it's running with the lens held stable, it makes quiet ticking sounds rather than a constant low-level rumble. If you move it around and it has to work a lot, it makes a lot more noise. Something I've seen noted before is that it's quite a bit less obvious that it's running in the viewfinder, because the picture doesn't swim around like it does with regular IS lenses.

thanks bob. some people report the IS to be literally silent or near silent. wonder if they are consistent between the lenses.

Handheld @ 1/20 5.6 ISO 1600 on 50D
Desklamp was only light source

^^^Very impressive for 1/20s on a 100mm lens!

Just to resolve the previous discussion about tripod rings, there's not a hope in hell of Tripod Ring B fitting this lens. It's way, way too big. Clearly someone misinterpreted what D (B) means.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #8767158
^^^Very impressive for 1/20s on a 100mm lens!

Agreed!

Cheers!

thanks. will have to wait for the listed ring for this lens and it's availability. i think the (B) DOES stand for the color black.

RiaGurl wrote in post #8767270
thanks. will have to wait for the listed ring for this lens and it's availability. i think the (B) DOES stand for the color black.

Adorama has it up for pre-order at $189.95. Ouch.

RiaGurl wrote in post #8765969
thanks bob. some people report the IS to be literally silent or near silent. wonder if they are consistent between the lenses.

On mine the IS is silent for all practical purposes when the lens is not moved. When moved it emits a sound that unlike other IS lenses has a tone to it. Hard to describe but sounds like its normal.

ehhh i really want a macro lens... hopefully as more people get their hands on the L i can get a normal one for cheaper...

Bob_McBob wrote in post #8767306
Adorama has it up for pre-order at $189.95. Ouch.

ya i just saw that, but lists only white (which is the weirdest thing). does this fit on some other white L lens?