# 100mm macro L on a 7d



## azezal (Dec 11, 2012)

Hi everyone,I have been using a 7d for about a year now and I know its limitations quite well.I am sure ff is the way to go for the future though I am pretty sure a 6d isn't the answer for a 7d user (atleast me).

I'm 17, still a student and 10 years away from a ff upgrade the 100 macro might as well be my last lens so I was wondering if its the right choice for a portrait/lowish light lens with a macro bonus.or should I consider something else within that budget (not the non l version I'm pretty sure about that too) 

P.S- I love taking shots in low light and light painting (i know, 7d is a perfect camera for that) so I am pretty frustrated on being limited to bright daylight shots so any tips are welcome,after all in 10 years point and shoots will have better ISO performance so i'll make the switch then

Thanks in advance

P.P.S- this is my first post ,really interested on what neuro has to say


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2012)

The 100L Macro performs very well on a 7D. If you want to shoot macro and an occasional portrait, the it's a great purchase. But IMO, I'd not really describe it as a lens that's ideal for low light/portrait use. Staying within that budget, I'd recommend considering getting the 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 for low light and portraits (depending on focal length preference - I like tighter portraits, love the 85mm FoV on APS-C) and the 100mm non-L (or the EF-S 60mm, since FF is a ways off) for macro shooting.


----------



## AmbientLight (Dec 11, 2012)

If you write a 100 macro might as well be your last lens for a while, what are your other lenses? Do you happen to already have any fast 50mm or 85mm primes?


----------



## Kristofgss (Dec 11, 2012)

I'd suggest the 85 F1.8 or 50F1.4 here as well. I have the 100 LIS and it's a nice lens, but it's more of a niche lens (unless you need it for macro) I nearly always have the 50 for low-light shooting. The 100 L IS is quite large too compared to the other two, so take that into account if you take your camera outside often.


----------



## azezal (Dec 11, 2012)

I have a 50mm 1.8 and a 18-135kit lens would sell both to get the 100macro


----------



## azezal (Dec 11, 2012)

special thanks to Neuro 
Btw I believe in owning l lenses only


----------



## AmbientLight (Dec 11, 2012)

Well, the 100mm L is quite a fine lens, but if you reduce your kit to just this lens you will end up pretty much focal-length limited, that is limited to 100mm.

I suggest to go for the 100mm L lens first, occupy yourself shooting macros and tight portraits for a while and then to add a 50mm f1.4, which is reasonably fast and rather affordable as an extra lens. This is of course once you overcome that believe to own one lens only .


----------



## azezal (Dec 11, 2012)

I don't think you get it 
selling gear is the only way for me to own L glass
Or I could sell 7d and downgrade to a rebel with 2 lenses

Personally I wouldn't hesitate lasting a decade with a 5d3 and a 50 1.2 but $$$$$ don't grow on trees specially for someone like me


----------



## 1255 (Dec 11, 2012)

i like the way you think.


----------



## cervantes (Dec 11, 2012)

*Keep the 50 1.8!!!!!* 
Why would you sell that for probably 50 lame bucks and limit your capabilities by 50%??
When you consider a lens for ~800$ 50 more or less must still be in your budget. Maybe you can negotiate the price a little or at least compare prices efficiently. With 100L and a nifty fifty you should be able to make some pretty impressive pictures!
With APS-C even 50mm is already a bit long.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2012)

Its great for a macro lens on a 7D, but get the 100 f/2 or 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and low light.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

It's a great macro lens, but it is very long for portraits, (except maybe headshots) and seems like a really bad choice to be your only lens.

Having L Glass is a nice, but the wrong L lens will not make for the right photo. I'd keep the gear you have over trading those lenses for a 100mm L Macro. If you read to much here, you will begin to think photography is all about the gear. it's not. It's about the photos.

Do you sell Microstock at iStockPhoto or similar? If not, why not? Takes a bit to start earning, but the money in your pocket will buy more gear, and get you closer to a bag full of L glass.


----------



## AdamJ (Dec 11, 2012)

azezal said:


> I don't think you get it
> selling gear is the only way for me to own L glass
> Or I could sell 7d and downgrade to a rebel with 2 lenses
> 
> Personally I wouldn't hesitate lasting a decade with a 5d3 and a 50 1.2 but $$$$$ don't grow on trees specially for someone like me



The 100mm L would be a good fit with your other gear but to trade your other lenses for it would severely limit your creative range. You might be overestimating the importance of ultimate image sharpness - how often is it the key feature of a great photograph?

I'd advise you to keep the existing lenses and add something fast, cheap and good, like an 85mm f/1.8.

Ps. I have a cold virus right now and this neuro-worshipping has only compounded my feelings of nausea.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2012)

azezal said:


> Btw I believe in owning l lenses only



I knew a guy who believed in driving only Mercedes cars. He had to give up his apartment to afford the payments, and found living inside a C-class to be very cramped. :

Personally, I own mostly L lenses. But then, I'm not a student anymore...



azezal said:


> I don't think you get it
> selling gear is the only way for me to own L glass



I suppose it comes down to philosophy...but in all honesty, with an L-lens you are paying a significant premium for what amounts to a small boost in IQ and/or build, and in some cases, not even an IQ boost - the 17-55mm and 15-85mm EF-S lenses outperform all of the UWA and 'general purpose' L zooms (24-70, 24-105, 17-40, 16-35 II, with the possible exception of the 24-70 II) when compared on the same APS-C body.

The most important consideration in choosing a lens, IMO, is focal length. You pick that first, then make the other decisions. Having only a 100mm lens for an APS-C camera is going to be extremely limiting. 

If I were going to have just one lens for an APS-C camera, it would be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I could certainly see selling your 18-135mm to help fund that lens. Later, add a used extension tube and you've got near-macro capabilities.


----------



## Blakegard (Dec 11, 2012)

Honestly if you think the 100L macro is going to be your last lens you really need to open your mind up... As for being on a budget I say drop the L glass invest in Ef-S lenses (Since you don't plan on going to FF for 10 Years) and purchase a wide angle and non L 100mm and keep your 50mm 1.8

Personally I do portraits, sports, and wildlife. I keep a 50mm 1.8 for portrait/low light shooting and a 70-300 for sports and use both for wildlife depending on subject. My next lens is easily going to be a 10-22 because in my opinion it is the best lens for all purpose shooting and brings me hours of joy.
My point don't let money be a deciding factor, you get what you pay for. The 100mm will limit you more than it will help you if it's your sole lens. Just to drive the point, get more than one lens and like I said since you don't plan on going FF anytime soon EF-S is the way to go. I recommend you opt out on buying lenses tho until you can afford it if you're "low" on funds.


----------



## skitron (Dec 11, 2012)

I have the 100L and its a very nice lens, but remember on a 7D it shoots like a 160 on a FF. I bought it because its a very good macro that can double as a short tele and works reasonably well in marginal light with the IS. But I also have a decent 50 and 35 to go with it. No way I'd want the 100L as my primary lens, especially on a crop body. 

I also wouldn't get married to the idea of "L" only, you'll miss out on some great glass going that route...especially if you're budget constrained. And if you aren't budget constrained, Zeiss has some pretty nifty stuff you'd be passing up.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 11, 2012)

The first thing I would do if contemplating the 100L as my only lens would be to set my zoom lens at 100mm, spend a week or two taking photos at no other focal length and see how often I wished I had another choice. You may find it more limiting than you expect (or you may not; we're all different). 

Much as I like my 100L, I think that if I were in your situation I would take another route: keep the 50 f/1.8 and get the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 plus a wide angle - Samyang 14 f/2.8, perhaps, or Canon 28 f/1.8. Or I might risk the extra noise in low light and buy a used 70-200 f/4 IS. (I would also point out that although the 100L is 2.8, and can be used to good effect in low light, like all (?) macro lenses it focuses rather slowly in very low light - not as well as the 85 1.8 or 100 2.)


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 11, 2012)

I agree with SDSR, try shooting with your [email protected] for a while and see how you feel. Personally I think the 100mm will be too long on the 7D (160mm full frame equivalent), and honestly even on full frame I think the 100mm could feel limiting if it were your only lens. I can't say it's a good choice, especially considering the versatility of the lenses you would be giving up for it. 

I think you need to have some kind of general purpose zoom, or if you're set on getting a prime I would try something a bit shorter (50mm at the most). Check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and if you shopped used you could probably get that, a 50mm f/1.4, and an 85mm f/1.8 for the price of the 100L (and you could do WAY more with that setup. Either that or a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which is my favorite general purpose lens for an APS-C body. Or if you're on a budget I've heard good things about the 15-85mm.

So for a zoom, 17-55 f/2.8 IS

Primes:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
and either:
a) Sigma 50mm f/1.4 

b) Canon 50mm f/1.4 + Canon 85mm f/1.8 (both can be found used for around $300)

Just a thought. The Canon 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are excellent lenses, especially the 85mm and both would be great for portraits. Add the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and you have a great walkaround prime. They would definitely keep you busy for a while and you would see a huge improvement in the quality of your images over your current setup. It would also help out with the low-light stuff you mentioned.

Whatever you do I would not get the 100L now if it's going to be your only lens. I think you're too focused on the versatility of the lens and the fact that it's an L lens, but looking at the big picture it's just not the right choice. Macro is fun, but it can get old pretty quickly and on an APS-C body 100mm is just too long to be your only lens. I'm pretty confident you would be happy with any combination of the lenses I mentioned. Even a $300-$400 prime is going to have comparable image quality (and in some cases better) than almost any L zoom. And I remember being set on L lenses and I could have saved myself a whole lot of trouble if I had checked out Zeiss lenses before I spent a year buying, trading, and re-selling almost every Canon prime under 200mm.


----------



## azezal (Dec 12, 2012)

Thank you everyone for your time
I feel enlightened,thank god I consulted you guys,this is gonna be a long post so first up

It absolutely kills me to sell any of my gear I have some sort of emotional connection with them specialy the 50 mm

I know that just the 100mil can (and is ) limiting but I have almost unrestricted access to my cousin's 24mm for atleast next 3 years

Though I have nothing my 7d has mounted several fantastic lenses including the 200 f2,of all lenses I liked the 100mm the mistake have constantly been using my friend's 100 L(i can probably compose with my eyes closed)

The17-40 caught my eye

I'm currently leaning towards a 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup with the 24 as my occasional wideangle backup

Renting is practically non existent in my country and 2nd hand lenses the same

3rd party lenses too are hard to come by

I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range

Thanks in advance


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2012)

If you think that was a long post, read some of jrista's...


----------



## azezal (Dec 12, 2012)

Still new here will keep an eye out for that


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 13, 2012)

I know you seem to have already made up your mind, but I feel I must chime in on the 100L.

It's an amazing lens, but you mention you will be doing primarily portraits with macro as a bonus. I used the 100L on the 7D for about 2 years, and while it was a fine lens, it was very often too tight for portraits, and I was very limited in how I could photograph my portraits. Sometimes I just couldn't get that far away from the people.

When I upgraded to the 5DIII, I fell in love with the lens as a portrait lens. It's absolutely amazing. 

Finally, as someone else said, I would never, ever sell your 50 1.8. It's such a cheap lens, and it provides you with a low light option when needed. There will inevitably be times you need something wider than 100mm, need more bokeh, or just want something small and light, and I would highly recommend you keep your 50mm. Just my opinion.


----------



## azezal (Dec 13, 2012)

roadrunner said:


> I know you seem to have already made up your mind, but I feel I must chime in on the 100L.
> 
> It's an amazing lens, but you mention you will be doing primarily portraits with macro as a bonus. I used the 100L on the 7D for about 2 years, and while it was a fine lens, it was very often too tight for portraits, and I was very limited in how I could photograph my portraits. Sometimes I just couldn't get that far away from the people.
> 
> ...



I'm currently leaning towardss the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 combo unsure now that I see rumors about the 50


----------



## murray09 (Dec 13, 2012)

I used to own the 100mm macro L and used it on the 7d. Works really well. Sharp, quick focusing and all the benefits of a crop body. Go for it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 13, 2012)

murray09 said:


> I used to own the 100mm macro L and used it on the 7d. Works really well. Sharp, quick focusing and all the benefits of a crop body. Go for it.



... I agree, except for "quick focusing" - the 100L, being designed as a macro and dual-use portrait lens has a rather slow af. Fortunately it has a zoom range limiter, so you can either pre-select "macro only" or (one of the main advantages over the 100mm non-L macro) "non-macro only".


----------



## sdsr (Dec 13, 2012)

azezal said:


> I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range



As you already have 50 f1.8, given your preferences I see no point in upgrading to the 50 f1.4 - the latter may be more robust, but I doubt you'll notice much difference, if any, in the photos you take. If you're mostly shooting 100-250 AND want/need a fast lens, you may want to get a 135 L instead of 50 f1.4 + 100 f2 (it costs about the same as the 100L); it's a stunningly good lens. Or consider a non-IS 70-200 f2.8 or, if you want/need IS and are willing to compromise on speed, the 70-200 f4 IS.


----------



## azezal (Dec 13, 2012)

sdsr said:


> azezal said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range
> ...



Not here not my country,its more expensive and too long to be the only lens on a 7d had a samyang been available here I would have gone for the 35 without a 2nd thought

So you say the transition from 1.8-1.4 isn't worth it in my condition and I should stick to the 1.8

Now I'm really confused


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 13, 2012)

azezal said:


> I don't think you get it
> selling gear is the only way for me to own L glass
> Or I could sell 7d and downgrade to a rebel with 2 lenses
> 
> Personally I wouldn't hesitate lasting a decade with a 5d3 and a 50 1.2 but $$$$$ don't grow on trees specially for someone like me



For the price of 100L macro, you may want to get the 100mm macro USM non-L (same IQ, just no IS) + a 40mm F2.8 + flash. Sometimes, getting the best doesn't equate in getting the best pictures.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 13, 2012)

azezal said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > azezal said:
> ...



I think you may have misread what I wrote - I was suggesting the 135L as a substitute for the 100L, not the more expensive 35L, which I think would be a huge waste of money since you have the 50 f1.8 and ready access to a 24. As for 50 1.4 vs 1.8, well, perhaps it's just me, but for the sorts of uses to which I put a fast 50mm lens, I see very little, if any, difference in the photos they take.


----------



## azezal (Dec 13, 2012)

sdsr said:


> azezal said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



No i get it 135 is one of my favorites but its $1250 here vs $990 for the macro

I think ill stick to the 1.8( love it)maybe I will wait a year keep contributing to the 5d fund
Buy it in 3 years( very very very very very unlikely)


----------



## azezal (Dec 13, 2012)

sdsr said:


> azezal said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not literally 10 years away from ff its more like 6-7 and I'm bitten by the L bug,but all your replies have been really helpful please tell me what you guys think about the 50 1.4 and 100 f2 setup or suggest a similar one I constantly see myself shooting between the 100-250 range
> ...


Zoom lenses are not my style and I desperately need a fast lens,I doubt the non is version is available here but it'll be great if it is


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 13, 2012)

azezal said:


> Though I have nothing my 7d has mounted several fantastic lenses including the 200 f2,of all lenses I liked the 100mm the mistake have constantly been using my friend's 100 L(i can probably compose with my eyes closed)


Since you have used and like the 100L, trust your own judgement, its what counts. Each person views things according to his method of photography, but its what you like that should determine what you buy.


----------



## amfoto1 (Dec 13, 2012)

azezal said:


> Hi everyone,I have been using a 7d for about a year now and I know its limitations quite well.I am sure ff is the way to go for the future though I am pretty sure a 6d isn't the answer for a 7d user (atleast me).
> 
> I'm 17, still a student and 10 years away from a ff upgrade the 100 macro might as well be my last lens so I was wondering if its the right choice for a portrait/lowish light lens with a macro bonus.or should I consider something else within that budget (not the non l version I'm pretty sure about that too)
> 
> ...



The 100L is an excellent lens, but....

First of all, macro shooting doesn't sound very high on your priority list. You seem more concerned about shooting low light, light painting and portraitts. Second, the 100L is the single most expensive lens in a focal length and category that's stuffed full of excellent alternatives (including other Canons). Third, I'm not really a big fan of using a macro for portraiture... a macro lens can be too sharp, too "clinical". Not everyone is an 18 year old model with perfect skin and a $200 an hour makeup artist prepping them for the shoot. Finally, for your purposes the IS of the 100L is pretty much unnecessary. What you want to shoot either can be done fine handheld without IS or you'll be putting the camera and lens on a tripod anyway, so likely won't find it necessary. IS is of limited value for high magnifcation macro work, anyway. It's of the most use with non-macro uses of the lens. And there you are "limited" to f2.8 with most macro lenses. 

Finally, 100L definitely wouldn't be my choice as my_ only_ lens... on a crop camera or anything else. 

For portraiture, you would likely be better served with an 85/1.8 or 100/2. The 135L is superb, too... but fairly long focal length for portraiture on a crop camera like the 7D. If you still want some macro capabilities for occasional use, you can add macro extension tubes (the Kenko set is probably the best value/quality overall) to any of these lenses or even to your existing 50/1.8.

If you really want a macro lens, plan to shoot a lot of macro shots... Consider other possibilities.... many of them half the cost or less than the 100L...

Canon EF-S 60/2.8 IS
Canon 100/2.8 USM (non-L, non-IS, build quality is identical to 180L macro, but the 100mm focuses faster)
Tamron 60/2.0 (the biggest aperture macro lens currently avail., might be more useful for portraits)
Sigma 70/2.8
Tamron 90/2.8
Tokina 100/2.8
Sigma 105/2.8 OS 

Didn't mention the 50mm macro lenses, since they duplicate focal length you already have. The 60mm and 70mm lenses might be too close to the 50mm focal length, too, for someone with so few lenses to work with. 

The two Canon lenses listed above and the 100L have USM and the Siggy 105 has HSM, which help with focus speed. The other lenses will be slower focusing. However, even with faster types of focus mechanisms, no macro lens will give ultra fast focus that some non-macro lenses can offer. The reason is that a macro lens has to move a focus group all the way from infinity to 1:1 magnification, far more than a non-macro lens. Macro lenses are designed for precision, anyway, not for focus speed. Some macro lenses have a focus limiter that can help, too. On the other hand, the lenses you have now are not USM and not all that fast focusing anyway... so you might be just fine with these other lenses' focus speeds. Macro and much portraiture don't generally demand all that fast focus, anyway. 

Don't be an "L-coholic". A red stripe and an L designation don't necessarily mean all that much. There are great lenses that are not Ls and there have been a few less than stellar L-series. Sure, most are fine lenses... but some are virtually no different. According to Canon, all that the red stripe and L designation means is that the lens is: 1. compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future (thus, no EF-S lens will ever be an L, no matter how good it is). 2. Built to the highest current standards and with the best possible materials. 3. Incorporates some form of exotic lens element(s). 

There have been some superb lenses that simply didn't need exotic glass to do their job very, very well, so never got a red stripe painted on them. For example, the 100/2.8 USM macro is identical in build quality and functionality to the 180/3.5L... even better in some ways (it's 2/3 stop faster and focuses faster, so is probably more useful for non-macro purposes). Yet it doesn't have exotic glass in it, so it's not an L. Or, look at the TS-E lenses... The original 24/3.5 is an L, as are the 17/4L and 24/3.5L II. But the 45/2.8 and 90/2.8 are not, though they are virtually identical build quality, image quality and functionality. Again, they just don't need exotic glass. 

Finally, an L might not be the best choice for someone for a number of reasons... consider the 50/1.2L and the 85/1.2L... both spectacular lenses. But they are somewhat specialized. They are not only more far more expensive, bigger and heavier, they are also slower focusing than far less expensive 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. These two Ls are designed with longer throw, slower focus purposefully... they emphasize precision over speed (especially the 85mm). That makes them superb portrait lenses, but perhaps a bit less capable for sports or any other sort of action photography. 

Some of my lenses are Ls... Others are not. In general, I don't care whether a lens has a red stripe painted on it or not. I consider the features of the lens, it's general utility and how it meets my needs. That's what decides for me whether or not I buy it and add it to my kit. I don't really care what color Canon paints it (within reason) or what designations they put on it. 

Good luck with your decision. I think you need to do more research and keep looking. The 100L caught your eye because you've had a chance to use it... but if you have stated your intended purposes well, might not be the best lens for you. Especially if you end up with it as your only lens, selling your others to purchase it. There are far cheaper macro lenses that can do macro very nearly as well, and other lenses more suitable for your intended purposes. So don't get stuck on the 100L as your only option. 

P.S. You might be interested to know that the 7D has a special feature just for macro shooting, when it's used with Canon USM macro lenses. Canon has not promoted or documented it very well, but when fitted with the EF-S 60mm, either of the EF 100mm with USM, or the EF 180/3.5L and focused close, in AI Servo the camera will increase subject distance sampling to 4X as frequently as usual. This is automatic, not something you can set, and only works with those particular lenses. And it only does this in AI Servo focus mode, which is a fairly unusual focusing mode to use with macro photography (I usually focus manually, sometimes use One Shot, but had been using a pair of 7Ds for three years before I even heard about this special macro focusing feature... don't know why Canon hasn't mentioned in the manual at all or elsewhere more often). I suspect the 5D Mark III and 1DX also have this feature, but don't know for certain. In effect, this feature acts a little like IS along a third axis (up/down axis and side-to-side axis of movement are handled by a normal lens-based IS, on lenses that have IS... this feature provides sort of a nearer/farther axis of correction.


----------



## azezal (Dec 14, 2012)

amfoto1 said:


> azezal said:
> 
> 
> > Hi everyone,I have been using a 7d for about a year now and I know its limitations quite well.I am sure ff is the way to go for the future though I am pretty sure a 6d isn't the answer for a 7d user (atleast me).
> ...



Than


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 16, 2012)

Personally, I kind of like the 50 1.8, that lens has to be the best bang for the buck of any dslr lens from any company, and it is so inexpensive that selling it is more trouble than what you would get for it.

As to the 100L, I find that when greatly changing the focus distance, no matter what the distance switch is set for, you have to manually tweak to get it close, but then autofocus takes over and it tracks well. It tracks butterflies in flight WAY better than the non L version.... I like the IS for handheld macro work, nowhere near as good as using a tripod, but sometime a tripod is not an option.

I have used the 100L for portraits of musicians in poorly lit bars and got some wonderful shots, but I was really wishing I had the 5DII with me as the better performance at higher ISO makes more difference than a faster lens would have made.... It's got to be at least 2 stops better..... And the 6D and the 5DIII are even better, but beyond my current budget.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 16, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I kind of like the 50 1.8, that lens has to be the best bang for the buck of any dslr lens from any company



I've also got the 50/1.8 but never use it because it's has such a crappy build quality and a very loud af I feel like it'd be the 80s again ... for shallow dof or low light shooting (small prints only because of very mediocre sharpness) it might do - but I'd everyone to "try before buy" if spending a little more $$$ isn't worth it.



Don Haines said:


> I have used the 100L for portraits of musicians in poorly lit bars and got some wonderful shots, but I was really wishing I had the 5DII with me as the better performance at higher ISO makes more difference than a faster lens would have made.



+1 ... f2.8 on current least on crop simply isn't enough for dim light shooting esp. when something is moving, the whole f2.8 religion only makes some sense when on full frame with higher iso capability and esp. a f2.8-tuned af system like on the 5d3 ... for crop only fast primes wide open reach accaptable iso values.


----------



## azezal (Dec 16, 2012)

Sorry amfoto1 I wrote a long reply and all it displayed was than of thanks

Guess I won't be getting the 100L after all ,got my eye on the sigma 35 1.4 doubt I'll get that either 

Its frustrating


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 2, 2013)

Just bought the 100mm 2.8 L Macro for my 5Dmkii. It's too much fun.


----------



## greger (Feb 5, 2013)

Everyone is happy to recommend their favourite lens. No one mentions or cares about the cost of filters. The 100 L
Macro IS USM is great on my 7D. At 67mm thread mount, my filters go on my 70-200 F4 IS USM and my 17-85 F4-5.6
IS USM Zooms so no need for me to duplicate filters or buy step up rings. All reviews I read of 7D said you need good glass. I was pleasantly surprised to find my 17-85 worked just fine. I bought a used 50 mm 1.8 nifty fifty Mark l so my 52 mm filters from my Canon AE1's 50 mm lens would work on it. I hope to have your expertise with my 7D at the end of this Summer. LOL


----------



## greger (Feb 5, 2013)

I've reread my post and my LOL falls flat. Sorry. Why not buy the 100 IS USM L Macro and after using it for awhile you
will know if you want more from a lens. you have been given lots of suggestions to research. Macro Photography is a fun
learning experience. With the 160mm focal length on a crop sensor it will make a great portrait lens for Portraits of people and pics of Flowers. My research on the 100 mm L Macro makes me think it's a must have lens. The 70-200 2.8 ll is another very popular lens. Although 77 mm filters are more costly to buy. I like my 70-200 F4 IS USM and usually mount it on my 7D before going out to take pics. As BIF are my first priority, I want to be ready to shoot. I have C1 set for this. C2 for Flash and C3is going to be set for bracketing for HDR. 
Spring isn't here yet so there is still time to do more research before you buy.


----------

