# Does it make sense to keep my EF 100mm f2.0?



## Tanja (Jun 24, 2013)

I have a EF 100mm f2.0 i use for portraits.

Now i will buy the 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro lens.

I ask myself it it makes sense to keep the 100mm f2.0?
Will i use it when i have the L?

Does f2.0 vs. f2.8 makes such a big difference that i like to keep the f2.0?
I use the EF 100mm f2.0 at f2.0 or f2.2 most of the time. I bought it for shallow DOF.

Or will the Macro be so good that i don´t use the EF 100mm f2.0 anymore?

Anyone who was in the same situation?
What do you think?


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 24, 2013)

Comparing the IQ of each (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0) i don't think you would need the f/2 once you get the 2.8L....

but since you are going to buy the 100L anyway, you can compare them yourself and see if the f/2 still has a place in your bag... if not, sell it. I'm sure you will get a good re-sale price on it! 

Either way, enjoy your new lens. 

Disclaimer : I do not, nor have not, owned or used either of these lenses


----------



## Tanja (Jun 24, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> but since you are going to buy the 100L anyway, you can compare them yourself and see if the f/2 still has a place in your bag... if not, sell it. I'm sure you will get a good re-sale price on it!



Of course.. and i will.

I just wanted to know what you guys think (or how you decided in the same situation). 

It will be a few days till i get my EF 100mm L IS.


----------



## noncho (Jun 24, 2013)

Well, I think 100/2 will be still OK, because is smaller and have better bokeh for portraits. I'm actually just wondering to buy 100/2


----------



## Tanja (Jun 24, 2013)

noncho said:


> Well, I think 100/2 will be still OK, because is smaller and have better bokeh for portraits. I'm actually just wondering to buy 100/2



it´s a very nice lens.

thought it has some problems with purple fringing wide open. 
not a dealbreaker but you notice it when you shoot wide open and have bright edges.

sharpness is better then with the 85mm f1.8 i had before.
fringing of the 85mm f1,8 was also worse then the 100mm f2.0.

i will do my tests and look if the bokeh difference between the 100mm L and 100mm f2.0 is worth it.

thought i don´t prefer to have 2 lenses who cover the same focal length.
it´s just a hobby for me and if i sell the 100mm f2.0 i could buy another lens.


----------



## oscaroo (Jun 24, 2013)

Gday. 

I've the 100f2 and I have tried the 100L macro.

I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!
The L doesn't have the purple fringing, which I find a total pain.

If I were you I'd sell the 100 f2, and maybe replace it with the 135mm L f2. That one has less/none purple fringing.
The purple fringing means that I don't use the 100 f2 often. But when I do use it , boy it is sharp!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2013)

oscaroo said:


> I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!



Yep - if you shoot indoor sports or the like, the extra stop and faster AF of the 100/2 make it a better choice.


----------



## georgecpappas (Jun 24, 2013)

I own and use both for different reasons...If your "eye" leads you to shoot a lot at that focal length, then keeping both of them can make sense.

The extra stop of speed can be a difference-maker depending on the lighting conditions; additionally, I prefer the rendering of the 2.0 for portraits. I have had this lens for a decade and am continually pleased with its results. The lens is also non-threatening to subjects which is a plus.

The macro is great for close focusing and appears "sharper"; that doesn't make it better depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

I tend to use the 2.0 more often, but still find enough use for the macro to keep it - at least for now.


----------



## hamada (Jun 24, 2013)

oscaroo said:


> I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!



i read the EF 100mm F2.8 IS L macro is pretty fast focusing?
photozone writes "very fast AF".

and it has an AF limiter, so it should be fast.

is it not?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2013)

hamada said:


> oscaroo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!
> ...


It's all relative. Compared to the 85L II, the 100L is a speed demon. But it's a lot slower than most other L-series lenses.


----------



## hamada (Jun 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> hamada said:
> 
> 
> > oscaroo said:
> ...



but the EF 100 f2.0 is not an L lens and much older... but it is still noticeable faster?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2013)

hamada said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > hamada said:
> ...



Yes, it is. The 85/1.8 is also faster, and _much_ faster than the 85L. For L-series lenses, I think the three slowest ones are the 180L Macro, the 85L, and the 100L Macro. The 100L Macro also seems to hunt for focus more frequently than many other lenses, especially in dim light. 

It's also worth noting that despite being an f/2.8 lens, the 100L is in 'Group C' meaning on the 1D X/5DIII it doesn't activate any of the high-precision f/2.8 cross points. But not to be outdone, the 180L Macro is in Group G, so while it's an f/3.5 lens not only does it not use the f/4 crosses, it can only use 33 of the 1D X/5DIII's 61 AF points. 

Bottom line, don't look to a macro lens for excellent AF. Which is ok for me, because I'm almost always manually focusing for macro shooting, anyway.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> oscaroo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the slowpoke AF of the macro, compared to the 100f2. The 100f2 focusses instantly!
> ...



Yes 2x the shutter speed also... albeit at a loss of sharpness. the 100/2 @F2 is not as sharp as the 100L is at 2.8. 

But at 2.8 they are close, but it also defeats the advantage of a larger aperture of the 100 F2.

So if you want razor sharp images wide open, the 100L might be a better choice, if shutterspeed and AF speed are important then the duplication of ranges might be acceptable... although that would suggest you *can* afford a duplication, in which case, I'd suggest get the 135L and sell the 100F2, the 135L betters the 100F2 in almost every parameter.

I too had the 86 F1.8 which some say is very similar to the 100F2, but it was no where as sharp as the 100L. Also the minimum Focus distance of the 100F2 was a tad disappointing... for me, so I sold them and kept the 100L.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 24, 2013)

100 F/2 -------> 135L


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 24, 2013)

Tanja said:


> I have a EF 100mm f2.0 i use for portraits.
> 
> Now i will buy the 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro lens.
> 
> ...



I was in a similar situation, but I choose the non-IS 100mm macro lens because
of similar (or slightly better) overall IQ and I will keep the 2.0 100 lens:
* I like to have f/2.0 for thin depth of field
* I like the small size/unobtrusiveness of the 2.0 100
* I like the overall structure/quality of the images at f/4.0-8.0: very detailed and contrasty
but far from _unnaturally _sharp
* I am amateur, so I love to shoot photos (it's in the name amateuer, perhaps amare, to love)


----------



## hamada (Jun 24, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> I was in a similar situation, but I choose the non-IS 100mm macro lens because of similar (or slightly better) overall IQ and I will keep the 2.0 100 lens:



first time i hear that the non L version has better IQ... i highly doubt that.
every review i have read so far tells the L is slightly better. 

equal maybe but the non L better? that is stuff people tell themself so they don´t have to buy the more expensive L lens.


----------



## Tanja (Jun 24, 2013)

I heard they are equal until f11. 
Center performance is marginal better on the L version.

Above f11 the L version is better.
The Photozone analysis seems to support that.

Beside sharpness, i heard the contrast and bokeh of the L version is better.

After cashback i pay 220 euro more for the L version (480 vs. 700 euro).
IS and weathersealing are worth it i think.

And the Reviewer here at CR really seems to like it:

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-100-f2-8l-is-macro/


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 24, 2013)

Can't really comment on the 100mm L as I have the non L version only. But a lot of people say they are almost the same optically. 

I used the 100mm macro for portrait in the past wide open. It's sharp enough but at f4 is where it shines. I would expect the L to behave similarly--ok wide open, great at 4 for portrait. 

I thought about getting the 100 f2 but in the end decided to get the 85 1.8 instead. 100 seems too long indoor. 85 is just right. I didn't want two lenses at the same focal length. Plus I have a zoom that covers 100. The 85 serves as a dedicated portrait lens, the 100 macro as a dual purpose lens. Now it spends a lot of time sitting in the closet. 

If you sell your 100 f2 you could get the 85 and keep some change. 

The 100L I'm sure is a wonderful lens. Too bad I don't shoot enough macro stuff to justify owning it. And I'm very happy with my non L when it does get used.


----------



## Tanja (Jun 24, 2013)

the 85mm f1.8 is no option. 
as i wrote i had it and the purple fringing was annoying.
and the 15mm would not really make much of a difference.


the 135mm f2.0 on the other side, that could be an option. 
but not immediately.
i can´t justify spending another 600 euro + what i get for the EF 100 f2.

but in the long run...


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 24, 2013)

Tanja said:


> the 85mm f1.8 is no option.
> as i wrote i had it and the purple fringing was annoying.
> and the 15mm would not really make much of a difference.
> 
> ...



Any lens wide open produces color fringing. Even my 135L does. I shoot people mainly so the fringing is less noticeable. You'll see it when you shoot shiny objects. The 135L appears to produce less fringing than 100 and 85 probably because of compression effect only. It's still there if you look for it. I'm not trying to convince you to get the 85, but I'm just brainstorming with you here. 

Your two 100mm lenses would give you the same perspective, the same look. So worth it or not is your call.


----------



## hamada (Jun 24, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> Any lens wide open produces color fringing.



but the EF 85mm f1.8 is very prone to this.

i had the 85mm f1.8 for a few days.
the purple fringing was so obvious, in nearly any shoot with white in it, that i sold it very fast.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 25, 2013)

Had the 85 F1.8 and the 100L. Sold both and regret it every day. Will buy the 100L again as I think it is the most versatile. God luck deciding.


----------



## CharlieB (Jun 25, 2013)

The only advantage the 100/2.0 has over the 100/2.8L IS Macro is size. The macro is quite a bit longer... 

For portaiture... we hardly ever actually shoot at f/2.0 

Formally, something more like f/5.6 or a half stop more... to get eyes and ears both in focus - which also brings the nose into focus.

However, if you're really looking for selective focus... yes, shooting at f/2.0 or with the macro f/2.8 is up to you.

You'll never, notice the difference in DOF between 100/2.0 and 100/2.8. You'd have to sit there and A-B compare over again to see any appreciable difference. You'll like the 100/2.0 for its size, but really.... in dim light, I'd take the 100/2.8L with its IS any day. And thats exactly what I did!

IQ is beyond fantastically excellent on both lenses... if the ergonomics don't matter all that much... the 100/2.0 will stay home.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 27, 2013)

My 100 2.0 has been sitting unused for a long time, since I have the 85 1.8 and the 135L. But last weekend I found a great use for it:

(this was at F/2.8 and 1/160, hand held, 5D3)







It's a great lens for shooting hood ornaments at a classic car show! LOL

There are a few more shots from the Concours d'Elegance on my blog if anyone is interested: http://www.beyondboudoirphoto.com/blog


----------



## magic koala (Jul 27, 2013)

Had the 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 and 135mm f2 for crop and full frame. I never got the hang of the 85mm probably because I started off with the 50mm for portraits and use the 100mm and 135mm for indoor sports. I did experience the purple fringing and thought it was a shame since the lens was so sharp. I must've bought and sold the 85mm 3x. Finally I just decided to do without. I like the 100m, fast AF and sharp. Of course, the 135mm gets more use.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 27, 2013)

I have the 100mm f2.0 though am wary of using it at f2.0 because of fringing.

If you feel you would reap the benefits of the faster AF then it's a great lens, I love my copy, and it is sharp wide open, just prone to fringing.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 28, 2013)

For what it is worth, the 100mm f/2.8L was my favorite lens for a year. I used it even when the focal length didn't really match the situation. It is a great lens. I had the 100mm f/2 but I never used it... which is to say I never used it... ever... not even once. 

But when I got my 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii, it was on par with the 100mm f/2.8L so I sold the macro lens and I gave up all of the macro functionality... though I didn't really use it that much for macro. 

I'd sell it... even though it would be hard... that money can either defray the cost of the upgrade or help fund another lens. I try not to have too much redundancy in my gear, but it is difficult.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 28, 2013)

why bother - there appear to be real but marginal differences between the two lenses. Why not just keep the
100f2.0 and add the 135L? OK, it's a few bucks more but it does have real admirers 'cause it's one hell of a 
lens.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jul 28, 2013)

hamada said:


> first time i hear that the non L version has better IQ... i highly doubt that.
> every review i have read so far tells the L is slightly better.
> 
> equal maybe but the non L better? that is stuff people tell themself so they don´t have to buy the more expensive L lens.



Depends which copies you're testing - see first chart in link below - but it really comes down to 'they're both plenty sharp':

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 28, 2013)

hamada said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > I was in a similar situation, but I choose the non-IS 100mm macro lens because of similar (or slightly better) overall IQ and I will keep the 2.0 100 lens:
> ...



A late reply but now it's there 

APS-C comparison between both (50D) (1st is NON IS version)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/488-canon_100_28_50d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/461-canon_100_28is_50d?start=1

FF comparison (5D mk ii)
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1

The differences are marginal - but the NON IS shows much lower CAs and a better uniformity of sharpness which is important to me because I like compositions where sharpness is needed at borders/in corners @ f/2.8 or similar.

As Hesbehindyou remarked - sample variations play an additional role.


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Jul 28, 2013)

I Love the 100 f/2  My favorite lens at the time. Love it for portraits and everything that needs some bokehliciousness. I use it on my 5D2. 

First is f/4, 1/800s. Second is f/2, 1/400s.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 28, 2013)

It depends what you want to do with it. I seldom photograph things that are moving around fast (and if I did I would probably use my 135L instead anyway), so the fact that the 100L isn't always very fast doesn't matter to me and the IS is very useful as light goes down when I'm not taking real macro photos (I seldom do that, either). A huge advantage to me of the L is its obviously shorter MFD - I may not want to take a lot of macro photos, but I often want to get close enough to take portraits of small things - flowers, kitten faces, etc. - and the three feet/one meter of the 100 f/2 often isn't close enough for me. Never having used the 100 f/2 I can't comment on its bokeh, but it's pretty wonderful on the 100L and, since you can get closer, you can get more blur in the background. 

I had hoped to find comparisons on-line of 100 f/2 vs 100L with photos, but perhaps I didn't look long or carefully enough. But I did find this, which compares 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 & 135 L which, if nothing else, might nudge you towards the 135L at some point (or not):

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=222419

As for the slow focusing of the L, well, it's all relative. Provided you stay within a narrowish range, it can be near-instantaneous, but if you switch from, say, a subject that's two feet away to one that's 20 feet away, it probably won't be and presumably (I've not tried) won't be fast enough for fast-moving sport where the distances keep changing significantly. The only time it's given me a problem, with considerable hunting, was in photographing some glass sculptures (hard to photograph in the best of circumstances) in a field late at night where the only source of light was the dim internal light in each sculpture. Manual override proved useful then (using the focus limiting switch would doubtless help too; I keep forgetting to use it). I've no idea of the f2 would have done any better.


----------

