the canon 100mm F2.8 macro...for landscapes? what?

anybody do this? just reading some reviews of the lens and somebody said they use this lens for " everything"...really?

I don't have one, but can say it's a very sharp lens with macro ability, not a macro lens with no other ability.

Sure. I guess if it fits your shooting style it could be used for a lot of things. My 180 macro (Sigma) was used for a lot of things as well, even though it's a more specialized focal length. Same with my 300 f/4 IS.

If you can't think of a way to take a landscape with a 100mm lens, then you are not very creative. I wouldn't call it even my 10th choice as a landscape lens, but if I had it on my camera I could make it work.

Taken at 105mm, which is close enough:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Sure it will work...

IMO, far too many photographers are locked into the idea that you must use a wide lens for landscape photography. That is also why, IMO, most landscapes I view are pretty boring.

Slapping on an UWA lens with the hope that "If I include everything I see, perhaps there will actually be something interesting in my shot!" just doesn't work most of the time.

You end up with large areas of uninteresting sky and foreground with a minute area of interest in the image.

IMO (again) UWA and WA lenses are best used for landscapes when they include a distinctive interesting object in the foreground.

For covering larger areas, there is nothing like a pano with a longer focal length.

I took some landscape shots using the 135L. It can be done at 100FL no doubt.

I've shot landscapes with every lens in my bag. Why the surprise that the macro 100mm is no different?

I have the 100 f2.8 and it is simply a very very good lens. I currently use it on FF and 1.3 crop sensors (previously on 1.6 as well). Just treat it as a 100 f2.8 that happens to be a rather excellent macro as well! It is great for landscape work with excellent colour and detail.
A, retired, professional friend of mine uses lenses from 85mm to 300mm for his landscape work on 35mm film, he likes to "accentuate the subject" as he says.
I would say it's rather short for wildlife and birds (in flight) but as an all round 100mm it's excellent only bettered (slightly) by the new L.
Use it - love it!

Sure...

Here's my 100L for landscape use:

its me wrote in post #10646956
=it`s me;10646956]anybody do this? just reading some reviews of the lens and somebody said they use this lens for " everything"...really?

I prefer the 100-400L for landscapes. Telephoto works well for landscapes, but it's nice to have a broad selection of tele focal lengths at hand.

What you will find when shooting landscapes with a telephoto lens is that you cannot accomodate a too long focal length by just moving a bit.....you have to stand in the 'right' spot for the perspective you are shooting and then adjust the focal length for the framing you want. Using a lens like a 100mm prime means you will often have to crop.

I agree some landscapes don't do anything and it'spretty hard to capture the Grand Canyon using any kind of lens .

I recall the Canyon tour guide saying that a few unfortunates fall each year trying to get that "killer shot " . ( Does that really happen ? )

Shadowblade wrote in post #10647713
Taken at 105mm, which is close enough:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

The 100L can definitely work for landscapes!

Very cool , how long did it take to get that one ?

nitehawk55 wrote in post #10649670
Very cool , how long did it take to get that one ?

45 minutes or so, on 3 consecutive nights to get the timing right. Most of the exposure on the mountain happened in the last few minutes, at the very start of moonrise.

yea... it can actually