Is the 100L Macro Good at NOT Doing Macro?

Hello phine photo peoples...

I'm currently trying to plan a lens line-up, but I'm getting nowhere really.

It's either the cheap method out... 50/1.4 and a Tamron 28-75

Orr the method I'd like more... the L method. That could be a 50/1.4 with a 24-70L. Thing is, I much prefer primes personally, so I'd be delayed by the 24-70L.

So I'm thinking another prime between 50 and 135 instead of the 24-70... I can't afford the 85 unfortunately, but the 100L is a reasonable price.
But seeing as the 100L is a specialised MACRO lens, is it still sharp and usable for normal day-to-day shooting?

Any help would be appreciated!

yes.

alt4852 wrote in post #9877588
yes.

Don't beat around the bush man

Jk. So how come the 100L is far cheaper than other primes?

The 100mm macro makes an EXCELLENT portrait lens. But beware, the Macro lenses are SUPER sharp, and will show every wrinkle/pore/blemish on your subjects face. You may find yourself doing some "softening" in PP, because none of your females subjects may like what they see.

I don't have the 100L; I have the regular 100 f2.8 usm, but personally, it's a fantastic lens for head shots and longer range portraits.

I don't have much of a lens line up, but currently my 100 macro is on my camera like 90% of the time. The other 10% I'm in my dinky apt and need something wider

I think you'll be very happy with the 100L, both as a macro lens and as a day to day lens

benesotor wrote in post #9877602
Don't beat around the bush man

Jk. So how come the 100L is far cheaper than other primes?

Because it's not a particularly fast prime. To be honest, the 100L and 100 2.8 macro are pretty much identical in IQ. The price difference is in the IS and slightly faster AF. The 100mm f/2.8 non-is is a FANTASTIC lens.

If it were me, I'd get the 35L & 100mm f/2.8 Non IS macro over the 50 1.4 & 100L Macro

I don't mind about about too sharp! My style usually involves killing sharpness anyway Well I guess I don't have much more to ask.

I'll wait to see how this apparent 50 1.4 II comes out, get that, and then probably a wider prime. I can see my future finances being bad!

^ The 35L is tempting too, although quite a bit more expensive

The 100mm prime/macros are less expensive than their brethren on both canon and nikon mounts. Not sure why as they are fantastic all around lenses.

benesotor wrote in post #9877585
But seeing as the 100L is a specialised MACRO lens, is it still sharp and usable for normal day-to-day shooting?

Yes, it's an ideal street lens for me. It's so versatile and hand-holdable because of the IS. Like others mentioned, it's a fine portrait lens too.

One other difference between macro and regular lenses is that whilst a macro lens will have very fine focus control for close distances, its focus control for far off subjects is far more crude. This means that if you focus manually at all it can be very tricky because a tiny turn in the wheel will result in quite a big shift in the focus point - in comparison to normal lenses.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 100L sounds like a very nice combo for APSC. Go for it.

Works fine as a 100mm regular lens.

I use mine as a portrait lens first and a macro lens second. It's phenomenal. Extremely sharp straight from f/2.8.

100 2.8 USM Macro (non IS) works wonders for me. I use it for portraits as well as macro shots. Primary use is Macro and it does its job wonderfully for ring shots (see rings shots examples in my site www.dKweddings.net )

I'm starting to think that I might not want to live with F2.8 on a prime, I'm not sure. So I'm thinking of looking at the 35L.