Cannon 100mm macro options?

[Ganoderma]

Hello. I have made the decision to go ahead and buy the canon 100mm macro. but there are a couple different models, and spending over a grand on a lens i wreally wish to make the right decision and not regret spendign alittle more for amuch better lense. basically wondering if the regular 100mm f/2.8 USM is really that much worse than the f/2.8L IS USM? I know "L" is generally better. But in reality between these 2 options, is it really THAT much better?

My goal is detailed animal and plant part phtoography. Will also liek to take habitat photos which ar ento close ups, and can be "landscape" like, but that is not my main goal of this lens, and i do have other lenses/body for landscape.

there is $500 difference in price, and if the quality is more or less close, i would rather sink the $500 into a better flash.

 

[penfolderoldo]

i've used the 100mm 2.8 L before and its a superb lens - pin sharp, lovely crisp detail right through the range. I've never tried the EF 100mm, but i'd be surprised if it was drastically different. Maybe the answer's to look out for a decent used L series and use the saving to improve your flash options - best of both worlds.

 

[Dao]

This what Photozone said.

"The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS macro has a comparatively easy play in the APS-C arena. The center to corner resolution is very high up to f/11 and even f/16 is a perfectly usable setting here. Typical for macro lenses distortions are a non-issue. Vignetting is only a slight problem at f/2.8. Lateral CAs are well controlled although potentially (just) visible at the borders. The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is excellent and among the best that we've see here. Unfortunately there's still some bokeh fringing which may spoil the game a little at f/2.8, less so at f/4. Technically the lens is probably not superior to the conventional 100mm f/2.8 USM macro but it offers a slightly better build quality and the new hybrid IS. The AF performance is about on par and as such vastly better than third party alternatives. Not an easy decision ... "

 

[Derrel]

The 100mm f/2.8 Canon L-series macro lens has also had a very bad reputation with several web testing sites which received lenses that had significant decentering defects, rendering the lenses (multiple samples) unfit for testing. I own a 100mm f/2.8 EF Macro, the USM model which has internal focusing, and it's a fine lens. There was an earlier version, which extended as it focused closer: I have no idea how good that model is. I honestly do not think the 100mm L-series macro tests out all that well, compared against some of the superb macro lenses that are on the market. Honestly, the presence of "bokeh fringing" (i.e. longitudinal chromatic aberration by another name) is enough that I would reject this lens as a macro lens--longitudinal CA in a macro lens is a serious, serious image flaw, and one that, unlike lateral CA, can NOT be corrected in software!!!

Honestly...Sigma's new EX 150mm macro lens is a lens that delivers better optical performance and higher image quality. Some people believe that the overall optical performance of the 100mm L-series macro is actually hampererd by the IS system. I honestly think the 100mm L macro is simply a lens design Canon rushed to market in two years, just to try to keep up with Nikon's 105mm VR-Nikkor macro lens. There really never was any "call" or "need for" an image stabilizwer Canon macro lens, and if the items both in front of and behind the point of sharpest focus are plagued by color-fringing of one color in front, and another color in back of the focus point, WHO wants that image flaw in their macro lens? Why not just buy a lens that has been refined over 30 years, like the Tamron 90mm AF-SP macro, for less money, and spend the additional $500 on flash and flash TTL remote cabling, diffuser,bracket,etc.?

 

[table1349]

Here are the reviews: You decide:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens Review
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens Review

I have the older non IS and love it. Better than any 3rd brand macro in the 100mm range and I tried them all.

A Few hundred more reviews from real users.
FM Reviews - Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
FM Reviews - Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

OK I may have to take my opinion back. Here is a review of the Canon 100mm macros from the ultimate Nikon Guy and he likes them. If a Nikon guy likes them then there may be something wrong with them. If a Nikon guy badmouths a Canon product I know it is good. :lmao:

From the ultimate Nikon Guy.
Canon 100mm Macro
Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro

 

[penfolderoldo]

OK I may have to take my opinion back. Here is a review of the Canon 100mm macros from the ultimate Nikon Guy and he likes them. If a Nikon guy likes them then there may be something wrong with them. If a Nikon guy badmouths a Canon product I know it is good. :lmao:

Never a truer word said! :lmao::thumbup:

 

[Hardrock]

If you plan on using the lens mostly for macro work I would get the 100 f2.8 usm, IS will not help much if any in that area. But if you do a lot of low light or still shots handholding than the IS may be very useful. As far as optical quality I would put the non IS version right there with the IS version. I own the non IS with usm model and love it. The only issue that I have is the focal length for macro , it really helps to have a longer lens like a 150 or 180 macro.

 

[Ganoderma]

Thank you guys very much, all very much appreciated. I am now leaning towards the older USM, like mentioned above teh $ differnece to image quality difference may be better spent on better lighting setup...i am really starting to warm up to that idea.

I do a lot of night work. I am in SE Asia and travel lots. I am always out at night, not always with a tripod (actualyl rarely with a tripod when hiking in wet season).

My photo subjects, thankfully are generally the slwo moving aniamls and plants. For animals mostly sit and wait predators or slow moving vegetarians. Arachnids, stick bugs/mantids, caterpillars etc. I dont do teh dragon fly/butterfly type shots. The only fast thing i can think of are centipedes, adn now lens is going to help with their speed when they want to move.

Tamron 90mm AF-SP macro

Now that is funny, just 2 hours ago i got an email form a fellow bug lover suggesting maybe this lens instead, to at least consider. Any others used this lens? I am going through more and more reviews now. I hope to purchase at teh end of this week.


On a side note, i am also reading into flashes but what would you guys suggest for a good field work flash...think "sludging through the forest in SE Asia" hehe. I am thinking the speedlite 430 ex II with extender and do up my own diffusers (i have read the canon diffusers are pretty lame).

thanks once again for all the pointers, and probably saving me a bunch of $

 

[Dao]

Actually, most of the true macro lens are quite good as far as optical performance concern. I owned a Sigma 105mm and Canon EF 100mm non-USM macro lenses and sold the Sigma later on. To be honest, I do not see much different at all between the 2 lenses except that the Canon feel better. And I am sure the USM version has a faster AF than my Canon as well as the Sigma and Tamron. But I do not use autofocus when taking photos of the bugs.

The Tamron 90mm macro lens, like other macro lenses, is quite good optically. I think it all come down to

- Cost
- AF speed
- Internal focusing
- Full Time Manual focus
- Able to use tripod collar mount (some photographers use the tripod collar mount to mount the flash on it)
- Fit, finish and build quality

 

[Overread]

I'll second Dao's points regarding optical quality in the macro lenses on the market - there honestly isn't a bad optical performer either from the own major brands or the 3rd party products. Optically they are all very good and often the only differences you can see appear in side by side studio tests and, esp after processing, can often not be seen at all in compared regular, real world shooting.

So yes it very much comes down to the specific features and cost of the lenses themselves as to which is the best choice for a person (and heck some macro addicts often end up with more than one macro lens for different situations/features).


As for flash lighting I agree a 430EX2 is an ideal unit to start with and when combined with a diffuser and a bracket setup will give you not only good light for macro work, but also a tool that can be used in almost every other area of photography as well - whilst macro specific flash units are often far more limited in their applications outside of pure macro and close up work.
For a good bracket this RAM-Mount approach has started to become popular for both its versatility and its secure, firm hold that it holds over the flash unit - often many of the cheaper Ebay brackets can be made of metals simply too thin for a secure hold for macro level work

 

[Dao]

(and heck some macro addicts often end up with more than one macro lens for different situations/features).

I wonder who that macro addicts is? That person must have the 70mm, 150mm as well as the MP-E macro lenses ..... just wondering ... just ... wondering .... :roll:

LOL

 

[BJF]

There should be no significant difference on image quality. You may consider to get the cheaper one.

Canon 100mm f2.8 macro + market price

Canon 100mm f2.8L macro + market price

 

[Overread]

(and heck some macro addicts often end up with more than one macro lens for different situations/features).

I wonder who that macro addicts is? That person must have the 70mm, 150mm as well as the MP-E macro lenses ..... just wondering ... just ... wondering .... :roll:

LOL

Hey don't forget the 35mm macro!!!