100L Macro Question

I'm pondering getting the new 100L macro sometime in the future. Is it suitable for "100 prime" type use, also? Portraits, landscapes, etc.? I don't have any primes yet except for the 180L macro which I really like and I was looking at the 85L but the 100L is half the price and I don't think I need the speed.

I have the 100mm macro and it works quite well for non-macro use. AF could be better but it's usable. IS would make it even nicer and the L version may focus faster, haven't heard much on that yet.

you are in japan the home of Canon and you are asking the americans ?

shrot answer: yes.

Route246 wrote in post #8626281
I was looking at the 85L but the 100L is half the price and I don't think I need the speed.

If you don't need the speed, why not try out the 85 1.8? I see your gear list is all L's, but there's nothing wrong with lenses like the 85 1.8 or the 100mm non-L macro for example.

I like shooting macro and I was trying to figure out if it would replace the need for the 85.

The reason my gear list is all L's is that I had quite a bit of consumer grade Nikon glass (and a body) that I've handed off and/or gotten rid of with residual value of almost nothing compared to what I paid for it. I feel like that was a waste of money, although it was given away to a family member which makes it OK.

Prior to purchasing my 5DII I did quite a bit of studying Ebay and CL and recognized quickly that L glass retains a nice percentage of value on the used market, unlike non-L which doesn't so much. I'm pretty much committed to investing in L glass now and I expect it to be productive, current and retain utility for the rest of my life, at least as long as the EOS family lives. My 5DII is almost a year old now and it feels like it's a year old in terms of depreciation and I can envision getting a new body in a few years to augment or replace my current one. One thing I know I will not need to do is renew any of my glass. I love my 24-105L and I intend to always use it as my walking around lens for a long time. The only thing that might replace it someday is a reasonable sized 24-105 f/2.8 but I realize that will probably never happen and if it did it would be too heavy for walking around.

Molnies wrote in post #8626639
If you don't need the speed, why not try out the 85 1.8? I see your gear list is all L's, but there's nothing wrong with lenses like the 85 1.8 or the 100mm non-L macro for example.

Route246 wrote in post #8627146
I like shooting macro and I was trying to figure out if it would replace the need for the 85.

The reason my gear list is all L's is that I had quite a bit of consumer grade Nikon glass (and a body) that I've handed off and/or gotten rid of with residual value of almost nothing compared to what I paid for it. I feel like that was a waste of money, although it was given away to a family member which makes it OK.

Prior to purchasing my 5DII I did quite a bit of studying Ebay and CL and recognized quickly that L glass retains a nice percentage of value on the used market, unlike non-L which doesn't so much. I'm pretty much committed to investing in L glass now and I expect it to be productive, current and retain utility for the rest of my life, at least as long as the EOS family lives. My 5DII is almost a year old now and it feels like it's a year old in terms of depreciation and I can envision getting a new body in a few years to augment or replace my current one. One thing I know I will not need to do is renew any of my glass. I love my 24-105L and I intend to always use it as my walking around lens for a long time. The only thing that might replace it someday is a reasonable sized 24-105 f/2.8 but I realize that will probably never happen and if it did it would be too heavy for walking around.

IMO: no. 100 F/2.8 is great for shooting portraits on FF, for sure, but I reckon the 85L, from the 100L sample shots I have seen so far, has better bokeh, and in addition, it has F/1.2 to F/2.5.

If you don't need a portrait lens faster than F/2.8, it is great. I managed for quite a while with the 60 macro on APS-C, and was quite happy with that, just like I was in my analog days with a 105 F/2.8 and a 100 F/4 Macro, for portraiture and landscapes that is. However, the 85L just adds a dimension that a 100 F/2.8 Macro just doesn't have. It is great as a landscape lens, too, BTW. The one thing a macro lens adds, and where it has the advantage, is focusing distance. The 85L has an MFD of 0.95 m / 3.1 ft, which may be quite limiting. And the 100L also adds IS, obviously.

Kind regards, Wim

Who knows how a product that's not even on the market yet will work! Sure, we can see some sample images made under ideal conditions and carefully for advance promotion of the lens. But that doesn't tell us about a lot of things, such as how it handles, it's AF performance, if Hybrid-IS has any quirks (not that Canon would ever release a product with any quirks ), etc.

Why not try the current 100/2.8 macro instead of the new L version?

It's a good, dual purpose lens. Especially if you use the focus limiter switch properly, the AF is plenty fast to use it as a short tele lens at non-macro distances. It's much better for non-macro shooting, for example, than the 180mm Macro. That's more of a specialty lens.

Yes, the max aperture is f2.8. But, depending upon the distances you are working... how close you are to your subject and how far they are from the background behind them, you can still get darned nice background blur with f2.8.

There are a lot of 100/2.8 USM showing up for sale right now, as people sell them preparing to buy the new lens. Prices will probably drop on the current lens, then rebound because it's still and excellent piece of equipment. It's near L quality in build and has excellent image quality. If anything, it might be too sharp for some types of portraits. (I wouldn't recommend the earlier, non-USM 100/2.8 as highly as a dual purpose lens... It auto focuses more slowly.)

The 85/1.2 II has slower AF and is more of a specialized "portraits only" lens. It doesn't focus particularly close. Not to say that the f1.2 lens isn't fabulous, just that it's very uncompromising. The far less expensive 85/1.8 is more versatile. It can do near macro work with some extension tubes behind it, if you need it to. It's a fine portrait lens, too.

The 135/2L was my first lens addition after I got my full frame camera. I'd highly recommend it, too. I've just been using it a couple months, but it's got my attention. Great lens, and works well with some extension tubes for near macro shooting, as well.

Route246 wrote in post #8626281
I'm pondering getting the new 100L macro sometime in the future. Is it suitable for "100 prime" type use, also? Portraits, landscapes, etc.? I don't have any primes yet except for the 180L macro which I really like and I was looking at the 85L but the 100L is half the price and I don't think I need the speed.

Route246 wrote in post #8627146
I like shooting macro and I was trying to figure out if it would replace the need for the 85.

I can understand that you like macro but the 100/2.8L IS macro isn't really going to give you anything more than the 180/3.5L macro except (1) wider max aperture (2) hybrid IS and (3) faster AF. They are both very sharp lenses. Sure, those are all good reasons to get the 100, but 1:1 is the maximum magnification of both lenses so in a way you're not really expanding your macro repertoire.

If you really like macro, you should consider a focusing rail, some flash rigs, and an MP-E 65. I would get one myself but I'm waiting for my 100/2.8L IS first.

Now if you want to do portraits, I suppose that's a reason to try the 100/2.8L but I think you have to look at using the right tool for the right job. If portraiture is your goal with a new lens, I would choose 85/1.2L II, 85/1.8, 135/2L, or even 200/2.8L depending on what type of portraiture you want to do.

Could you do both macro and portraiture with the 100/2.8L? Sure. Would you find it to be exactly what you need? How are we supposed to know?

The bottom line is that your criteria are somewhat contradictory. You want a good portrait lens but you also want it to do macro even though you already have an excellent macro lens. You want to buy an L prime because you perceive it to retain value better, but it's too expensive, and you don't need the wide max aperture. So how are we supposed to advise you?

If I were you, this is what I would do. I would sell the 180/3.5L macro, buy the 100/2.8L IS macro, and the 85/1.2L II. But that's just me. Or, I would buy the 85/1.8 and the MP-E 65mm.

I like this idea. My 180L is still pristine (I am not that gentle with my equipment and tend to treat it like pros do) and should be easy to sell. I will take this into consideration.

wickerprints wrote in post #8628009
If I were you, this is what I would do. I would sell the 180/3.5L macro, buy the 100/2.8L IS macro, and the 85/1.2L II. But that's just me.

wickerprints wrote in post #8628009
I can understand that you like macro but the 100/2.8L IS macro isn't really going to give you anything more than the 180/3.5L macro except (1) wider max aperture (2) hybrid IS and (3) faster AF.

Huh?? Isn't that enough? I can't wait to get my hands on a macro lens with IS. Talk about being versatile - built in shake control. That itself is golden.

NeutronBoy wrote in post #8628538
Huh?? Isn't that enough? I can't wait to get my hands on a macro lens with IS. Talk about being versatile - built in shake control. That itself is golden.

My point is that it's not going to give any higher magnification, which would be one of the main reasons for getting a *second* macro lens. I see a lot of Canon macro shooters with the MP-E 65mm. From all the shots I've seen with this lens, it is truly a unique and fine piece of optical machinery. Looking at your own lens collection, I can see you have two macro lenses, but one is the MP-E, as I pointed out. Why would you get a 100/2.8 *and* a 180/3.5? It seems like purchasing L glass for the sake of the L, not for what one actually needs. If one really wants the IS, then sell the 180.

That's why I recommended at the end of my post to sell the 180/3.5. Two macro lenses that only go to 1:1 isn't what I would call a judicious distribution of functionality. It's looking at the portrait + macro shooting in the opposite way. Instead of looking for two lenses to do both okay, you need one lens for each, to do each one well.

If you are content with what you have, and want to add another lens, for portrait, Take a good look at the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2.

Route246 wrote in post #8626281
I'm pondering getting the new 100L macro sometime in the future. Is it suitable for "100 prime" type use, also? Portraits, landscapes, etc.? I don't have any primes yet except for the 180L macro which I really like and I was looking at the 85L but the 100L is half the price and I don't think I need the speed.

The 100mm macro classic is good for all sorts of things, also the AF is 500% better than on the 180L which sucks big-time, the 180L is much more directed to macro and although the 100mm is an excellent macro lens it excels at most other tasks.

I find the 100mm macro AF as fast as my 200/2.8L II in normal light, the trick with macro and close focus lens AF is to use the focus range limiter for normal distance shots, this does not help a lot with the 180L IMHO.

I would presume the new IS version is similar, to be honest you don't really need IS on a 100mm lens unless you are planing indoor ambient light work in which case a faster prime like the 85/1.8, 50/1.4 or 28/1.8 would be a better option.

The new hybrid IS for macro use is probably worth having is you don't already have the classic but I am not sure about upgrading and if slower shutter speeds will all that useful for the sort of subjects I shoot, I'll wait and see.