# what does everyone think of the 100L macro for wedding portraits and generalwork



## giltaminphotography (Feb 5, 2014)

I just rented the canon100L to see if I like it for portraits, I use the 70-200 v2 is but its so heavy to lug around and I'm looking for something a little lighter. I find the 100L to be fairly light. I use to own the 135L but I found it to be a little long and its heavier then the 100L. Let me know your thoughts on this lens deciding on wheather its worth keeping. I don't use macro often but it may come in handy for wedding work.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 5, 2014)

Which 100mm macro are you referring to? For some reason Canon make two 100mm macro lenses. The Canon 100mm F2.8L has IS and it is an excellent overall lens but I have never used the other one (the non IS, non L version). On a full frame camera the 100mm F2.8L IS macro is perfect for portraits. Image quality is very good and it is not too heavy. In fact I have never actually used it for macro work.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 5, 2014)

It's a really nice lens but the auto focus is going to be much slower that the 135. I'd recommend switching to back button AF and keeping your other hand busy on the focus ring to "help" and speed up the focus. It'll lock much faster that way.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 5, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> It's a really nice lens but the auto focus is going to be much slower that the 135. I'd recommend switching to back button AF and keeping your other hand busy on the focus ring to "help" and speed up the focus. It'll lock much faster that way.



The 100L'.s af isn't slow, but it has a much larger range with a minimum focusing distance of 1ft to infinity... and it will search in that 1ft range. There is a switch to change it to 3 ft and beyond... 

I've used the 100L for portraiture, sports, macro... it is a very good lens. 

However... no one describes the bokeh as magic like they do with the 135. So your work product might suffer... but not that much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> It's a really nice lens but the auto focus is going to be much slower that the 135. I'd recommend switching to back button AF and keeping your other hand busy on the focus ring to "help" and speed up the focus. It'll lock much faster that way.



Also, set the focus limiter switch to 0.5m–∞ when shooting portraits.


----------



## giltaminphotography (Feb 5, 2014)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Which 100mm macro are you referring to? For some reason Canon make two 100mm macro lenses. The Canon 100mm F2.8L has IS and it is an excellent overall lens but I have never used the other one (the non IS, non L version). On a full frame camera the 100mm F2.8L IS macro is perfect for portraits. Image quality is very good and it is not too heavy. In fact I have never actually used it for macro work.



I'm referring to the 100 mm macro L 2.8 IS


----------



## surapon (Feb 5, 2014)

giltaminphotography said:


> I just rented the canon100L to see if I like it for portraits, I use the 70-200 v2 is but its so heavy to lug around and I'm looking for something a little lighter. I find the 100L to be fairly light. I use to own the 135L but I found it to be a little long and its heavier then the 100L. Let me know your thoughts on this lens deciding on wheather its worth keeping. I don't use macro often but it may come in handy for wedding work.



Dear Friend giltaminphotography.
I have both 100 mm.Lenses, Yes They are great for Portrait Photos, BUT---BIG BUT--We need to use with FF Camera, If Use with small sensor Canon Cameras, 100 X 1.6 = 160 mm is too far distant when we shoot the model for full body portrait photos.
Good luck.
Surapon


----------



## giltaminphotography (Feb 5, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > It's a really nice lens but the auto focus is going to be much slower that the 135. I'd recommend switching to back button AF and keeping your other hand busy on the focus ring to "help" and speed up the focus. It'll lock much faster that way.
> ...



I've used the 85L and the 135L for portraits they both excel but I found the 135 a little long and the 85L to be a little slow with af. The bokeh on the 85 was amazing but I didn't love the lens like I loved the 135L. I'm hoping the 100L is close just because I do a lot of handheld work and I find it very light and comfortable. If they came out with a newer 135 with IS I would jump on that.


----------



## giltaminphotography (Feb 5, 2014)

surapon said:


> giltaminphotography said:
> 
> 
> > I just rented the canon100L to see if I like it for portraits, I use the 70-200 v2 is but its so heavy to lug around and I'm looking for something a little lighter. I find the 100L to be fairly light. I use to own the 135L but I found it to be a little long and its heavier then the 100L. Let me know your thoughts on this lens deciding on wheather its worth keeping. I don't use macro often but it may come in handy for wedding work.
> ...



I'm using it with a 5d3 and a 6d, I couldn't imagine not shooting full frame. Thanks for your input.


----------



## btaoka (Feb 5, 2014)

giltaminphotography said:


> I just rented the canon100L to see if I like it for portraits, I use the 70-200 v2 is but its so heavy to lug around and I'm looking for something a little lighter. I find the 100L to be fairly light. I use to own the 135L but I found it to be a little long and its heavier then the 100L. Let me know your thoughts on this lens deciding on wheather its worth keeping. I don't use macro often but it may come in handy for wedding work.


I think the 100mm L is a great lens for portraits. I had mine on a 6D at a friends wedding this past summer but was not anticipating shooting at all. After a few shots, I got into it even though it was my first time using the lens in this capacity. Here's a sample:





That photo isn't as sharp as it could be, but that was due to my inexperience rather than the lens itself. Here's a small set of photos from that day: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157637954549245/. The only downside I found was indoors, specifically where space is an issue. In smaller rooms, the 100mm length was too long for me (which is why I have no photos of the reception, and the fact that I was drinking by then).


----------



## giltaminphotography (Feb 5, 2014)

btaoka said:


> giltaminphotography said:
> 
> 
> > I just rented the canon100L to see if I like it for portraits, I use the 70-200 v2 is but its so heavy to lug around and I'm looking for something a little lighter. I find the 100L to be fairly light. I use to own the 135L but I found it to be a little long and its heavier then the 100L. Let me know your thoughts on this lens deciding on wheather its worth keeping. I don't use macro often but it may come in handy for wedding work.
> ...



These photos look great pretty nice colour, the clarity seems to be on par with the 135L. Did you end up keeping the lens? The 6d is a great camera it was suppose to be my backup camera to my 5d3 and I find myself using the 6d way more.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Feb 5, 2014)

Hey giltamin,

I use this lens for its duel purpose. For weddings, it's phenomenal at capturing the rings, cake details, dress details, etc. It is not my go-to must have by any means, however, I can count on adding an additional 40+ images to someone's wedding when I include this lens in the lineup.

I really have done little work using it as a portrait lens. For portraits, I use the 85Lii for slow/non moving people and the 70-200ii for faster moving work. 

As a macro/detail lens, it's a keeper for me.

I hope this helps,
-Tabor


----------



## bchernicoff (Feb 5, 2014)

It's a great lens for portraits. It's less versatile than the 70-200 v2 as a portrait lens, but you gain macro shooting ability and the size/weight savings. It's a tough choice, so I own both. Though also shoots sports with the 70-200 so it has its own justification.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 6, 2014)

My weddings I shot, I used my 100mm L macro for the detail shots, such as rings, jewellry, bouquets, cake etc

When people mention working in smaller spaces with a prime, I immediately imagine that a zoom lens, such as your 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 24-70mm f/2.8 becomes a better option as "zooming with your feet" is a little tough when sharing a small space with a number of people.

Perhaps an exercise you'd want to try. Shoot a few portraits with the 100mm macro and then the 70-200mm at 100mm. See what you favour and ask if losing your zoom is worth the trade off.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Feb 6, 2014)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Hey giltamin,
> 
> I use this lens for its duel purpose. For weddings, it's phenomenal at capturing the rings, cake details, dress details, etc. It is not my go-to must have by any means, however, I can count on adding an additional 40+ images to someone's wedding when I include this lens in the lineup.
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 6, 2014)

giltaminphotography said:


> Let me know your thoughts on this lens deciding on wheather its worth keeping. I don't use macro often but it may come in handy for wedding work.



It's an absolute keeper for portraits, and as you already used it you seem to be ok with the slower focusing speed (even with the focus limiter on, a full round trip takes a lot of time though probably less on a 1dx).



giltaminphotography said:


> I'm using it with a 5d3 and a 6d, I couldn't imagine not shooting full frame.



... though the 100L is one of the lenses that are also very good with crop, and even beneficial for macro because of the larger working distance (180L-IS anyone?).


----------

