Hows the 100L Macro for street use?

I just posted this in a different thread, then realized my own folly.

Fact is, maybe I don't love the 85 anymore. I'm diggin' my 50, never use my 135 although its beautiful. SO, do I practice what I preached and skip the 85, go for a 100, sell my 135. It's exceptionally interesting to me 'cause the Macro L might be real fun. Am I better off with the 100 f2? 50 to 135 is a big area to leave a prime gap...

So I'm maybe answering my own post.

Maybe the 100 f2. Then do the 180 3.5 L Macro, since I already have the 70-200 2.8 (I don't need another 200 2.8 ). Then: 100, 180Macro, 300.

Stupid or not to bad?

Here's a comparison I did of the focusing speed between the 135L & 100L. It should give you some idea what to expect there:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=764137

I had the 180L Macro. It's definitely a sweet lens. However, it's about the same size as the 70-200 f/2.8L, it's heavy, and the focusing is slooooowwwww. For those reasons, it didn't leave the house much with me, unless I absolutely knew that I wanted to do some macro shooting. With the 100L Macro, I know that I can do true macro shooting, I can probably skip the tripod (the 180L is very difficult to handhold at 1:1), and I can use it as a general shooting lens too if need be.

So, if you want a macro lens, the 180L is definitely a nice choice. If you want a macro lens that can pull some double duty as a medium telephoto lens, the 100L might be a better choice.

Thanks. Isn't the new 100L macro getting some bbad press? Bad edge problems, more?

mcluckie wrote in post #8861076
Thanks. Isn't the new 100L macro getting some bbad press? Bad edge problems, more?

The only somewhat negative thing I have seen is from the photozone.de review:

MTF (resolution)

The resolution characteristic of the Canon L lens is very good although it did fall a little short of the high expectations that we had here. That's certainly not valid for the center quality which is excellent all the way up to f/8 but unfortunately the borders aren't quite on that level - they are "only" good to very good at f/2.8 and they reach their maximum at f/8. Starting from f/11 onwards there's the general decrease in quality due to diffraction effects. However, the lens remains easily usable at f/16. f/22 is a borderline setting in terms of quality but it's not all that bad.

Review is here:
http://www.photozone.d​e …_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d

Man, it will sure hurt to sell the 135. Its a beautiful lens, but its sad I never manage to bring it when I shoot. I suppose it's better to pass it on to someone that WILL use it, rather than sit in my closet. Damn tho...

I'm kinda leaning toward the 100 f2. I think I need the extra stop, I just like L lenses.

mcluckie wrote in post #8857294
Then: 100, 180Macro, 300.

Or 100L macro, 200/2.0 L, 300/2.8 L

I've got a 300 f4 L IS (which is great for how I use it), and it'll be years unil I can afford the 200 f2 — I've been drooling over that lens for a while.

If only the 100 L macro was f2, but maybe.

The 135L image quality poos all over the 100L Macro

I wouldn't use it as a walkaround lens, usually I find it hard to spot differences between lenses, My 30mm Sigma 1.4 is sharper than the 100mm Macro.

mcluckie, have you decided what route you are going to go?

I'm in the same boat as you. i have the 30mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4. I'll probably end up with a used 135mm L this week. (I wanted something to carry around besides the 70-200 since it always ends up at home.) I was also looking at the 85, 100L macro and and 100 f2. I would like to have macro capability, but never have shot macro before. I guess I was thinking I could just use the 135 with extension tubes for occasional macro.

I'm surprised to hear that people love their 135 but don't use it very much (on this and other threads). Maybe because it's a difficult focal length on a crop. What do you end up carrying when you don't bring along the 135?

Gel wrote in post #8865168
The 135L image quality poos all over the 100L Macro

That's not really true at all. The 135L is nice, but they're both about the same @ f/2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

Gel wrote in post #8865168
The 135L image quality poos all over the 100L Macro

I wouldn't use it as a walkaround lens, usually I find it hard to spot differences between lenses, My 30mm Sigma 1.4 is sharper than the 100mm Macro.

I haven't seen anything that backs up your statements here. The resolution of the 100mm F2.8L macro is very high. If you were comparing them on focus speed or amount of bokeh, I might be inclined to agree with you. But the comparison between the 30mm F1.4 Sigma and the Canon is ridiculous. I have not seen one test that shows the sigma having anywhere near the sharp edges that the Canon has(not to mention 30mm and 100mm aren't exactly comparable).

On the OP's topic I love the 100mm F2.8L for candid head shots or long distance candids. It's the perfect length on my crop camera to be able to take shots without people necessarily knowing I am taking them. I would use it a lot at a wedding reception probably to avoid disturbing conversation and capturing natural, candid moments.

It's also VERY sharp. I find it is generally sharper than my Canon 17-55mm but they are really close. So in all, I love this lens.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #8866275
I haven't seen anything that backs up your statements here. The resolution of the 100mm F2.8L macro is very high. If you were comparing them on focus speed or amount of bokeh, I might be inclined to agree with you. But the comparison between the 30mm F1.4 Sigma and the Canon is ridiculous. I have not seen one test that shows the sigma having anywhere near the sharp edges that the Canon has(not to mention 30mm and 100mm aren't exactly comparable).

On the OP's topic I love the 100mm F2.8L for candid head shots or long distance candids. It's the perfect length on my crop camera to be able to take shots without people necessarily knowing I am taking them. I would use it a lot at a wedding reception probably to avoid disturbing conversation and capturing natural, candid moments.

It's also VERY sharp. I find it is generally sharper than my Canon 17-55mm but they are really close. So in all, I love this lens.

I knew I'd get shot for this but I was quoting real world use.

I based my opinions on how I felt when I put the pictures on the PC. I went out with the 100mm Macro and the 135mm lens on the same day, same ISO and apertures and even though the Macro had IS the pictures coming out of the 135L were better.

It's how I feel about the pictures when I get them home and as such my 30mm Sigma does pictures that I, personally like more regardless of focal length.

Close up, for Macro use it's a superb lense. As a walkabout I can think of better. I'm not suggesting he gets a 30mm instead of a 100mm just what I thought of the lens.

If I'm going to spend so much on a lens, the first thing I do when I get it is to check out the images in the real world. Black and white lines on a wall somewhere really don't compare.

Unless the OP wants to solely shoot Mime artists in Paris.

Gel wrote in post #8866961
I knew I'd get shot for this but I was quoting real world use.

I based my opinions on how I felt when I put the pictures on the PC. I went out with the 100mm Macro and the 135mm lens on the same day, same ISO and apertures and even though the Macro had IS the pictures coming out of the 135L were better.

It's how I feel about the pictures when I get them home and as such my 30mm Sigma does pictures that I, personally like more regardless of focal length.

Close up, for Macro use it's a superb lense. As a walkabout I can think of better. I'm not suggesting he gets a 30mm instead of a 100mm just what I thought of the lens.

If I'm going to spend so much on a lens, the first thing I do when I get it is to check out the images in the real world. Black and white lines on a wall somewhere really don't compare.

Unless the OP wants to solely shoot Mime artists in Paris.

The problem is you are basing your conclusion that the 135L "poos" on the 100mm by your own feelings walking around. When a lens is under test with a set of benchmarks, our feelings don't come into play. Mistakes can generally be minimized, and the subject is the exact same.

If you are going to make these claims, post shots comparing the 100mm to the 135 and tell us why you think the 100mm is deficient. Please take pictures with both on the same day, in the same light and of the same general subject so comparisons can easily be drawn.

Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for why the 135 is much better than the 100mm other than your own opinion, which isn't substantiated with any facts at this point.

My 70-200 IS. I originally got a 16-35, 50, 70-200 f4 IS and put 2 fast primes (2 stops faster) in the middle of those zooms. (Always a FF body.) I thought I was so smart! Thats when I got the 135. I think I only really used it on 2 occasions in the last 18 months. Now I have a few more lenses and collecting more primes. I love my 50, and don't use the 85 either, but I feel I need something faster longer than the 50 — 135 is a big jump.

As much as I LOVE (read: LOVE) my 70-200 f4 IS, I'm also thinking of going for the 2.8 (IS, sell the 200 2.8, also unused, then a dupe). So maybe the 100 L at 2.8 won't get me anything (well, macro). I never used to sell lenses!