100mm Macro

[deeky]

I'm looking at the Canon 100mm macro (not L series). The question is, do I go f/2 or f/2.8? There is a definite price difference. Is it worth it? I am looking at predominantly insect and floral macro work and the occasional other abstract.

Other than difference in aperture and filter ring size, what's the difference?

 

[Alexr25]

I may be wrong as I don't shoot Canon but I thought that the f2.0 lens is not a macro but just a normal mild telephoto lens with maximum magnification 1:7, so if you want to shoot insects you will have to go for the f2.8 macro.

 

[iolair]

Alex is correct, the f/2.0 isn't a macro.

While the 100mm f/2.8 is said to be a wonderful lens (I personally haven't tried it), you might also want to consider the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (very highly regarded) and Sigma 105mm f/2.8 (also gets great reviews). In terms of performance, there's not much to choose between the three lenses.

I used to own the 60mm f/2.8, but wished I'd gone for one of the above lenses because the working distance is a bit too close with the 60mm (plus, it only works on crop-sensor cameras).

 

[KenC]

The 100 f2.8 is a wonderful lens, probably my second favorite lens. The Tamron and Sigma may be just as good, but I have not heard anything from anyone who's used them. One thing to consider re focal length is that an even longer focal length could be useful for true macro shots of insects, so you can have more working distance and not scare them off as easily. I hear the 180 f3.5 macro is wonderful, but it's an L, so it is pricier.

 

[Alexr25]

............. you might also want to consider the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (very highly regarded) ............

I second that!
I use the Tamrom 90mm f2.8 on a Nikon and it really is a wonderful lens.

 

[deeky]

Duh, I'm an idiot. I was looking on a different site than normal and forgot that I couldn't sort by macro. Thanks for the wake-up and the other recommendations. I'll take a look at them.

 

[JohnTorcasio]

I use the Canon EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
picture of Bee taken with this lens

 

[greybeard]

I'm looking at the Canon 100mm macro (not L series). The question is, do I go f/2 or f/2.8? There is a definite price difference. Is it worth it? I am looking at predominantly insect and floral macro work and the occasional other abstract.

Other than difference in aperture and filter ring size, what's the difference?

I shoot Nikon and Sony but, I do have a 105mm Nikon macro and shoot the same sort things you are wanting to shoot. Get at least a 100mm for insects as it allows for a comfortable working distance. On occasion I use a 1.4 tele converter with the 105mm which gives me a little more reach. To be honest, I've never heard of a bad macro lens, so as long as you stay at around 100mm, you really can't go wrong. It has been written several times that the Tokina 100mm macro is as good as any and is selling for under $400 new these days.