# 100MM 2.8 USM or THE 100MM L for portrait and macro work??



## skoobey (Oct 10, 2013)

I was wondering what are your opinions on 100mm Canon macro lenses?

I plan on buying something that is great both for fashion macro (face-close ups, jewelry, eyes, lips, nails) and portrait (including full body shots). I dislike changing lenses, and I only have one body(edit it's a 5d mkII) to work with.

Autofocus has to be great, I tested a used 100mm USM MAcro, and it back-focused a lot, and I'm not sure is that a common problem, as many have complained about the early examples of this lens, and I don't know how old that lens was. ;D

Distortion is my big concern. How much is there in both of them when it comes to barrel/pincushion?

I own 24-105, but it does have a way too strong of a distortion, and I don't like that effect one bit. It is only perfectly straight at 35mm. I shoot with a lot of horizontal/vertical/diagonal lines on the set and it MUST be straight at the capture.

Sharpness is a must, 24-105 is reasonably sharp, but I really hope to get something much sharper.

Bokeh is important only as far is looks good, not broken up too much (like 50 1.8 for example), and not jaggedy, but I shoot stopped down exclusively, so DOF is really nothing to consider.

Price is important, but I'll stretch if I must. 

Anyone has experience with either/both? Your opinion?    

Maybe even some other manufacturer? 

I shoot using 5d mkII. I shoot fashion and internal AF is just fine with me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2013)

Lens recommendations are difficult without knowing what body you have. 

As for backfocus, if you're shooting with a reasonably fast lens (f/2.8 or wider), either have a body with AFMA or plan to send body+lenses to Canon for calibration. 

The 100L is ok for portraits, a great choice for handheld macro. I prefer the 85L or 135L for portraits, you could consider the 85/1.8 or 100/2.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lens recommendations are difficult without knowing what body you have.
> 
> As for backfocus, if you're shooting with a reasonably fast lens (f/2.8 or wider), either have a body with AFMA or plan to send body+lenses to Canon for calibration.
> 
> The 100L is ok for portraits, a great choice for handheld macro. I prefer the 85L or 135L for portraits, you could consider the 85/1.8 or 100/2.



I don't have a budget for both 85 1.8 and a 100mm macro, and are a bit too close focal-length vise, aaand I really need a macro lens. 

135 is great, but my studio is too small, and I could only use it for up to waist images.

I do have AFMA on 5d II, but that tested lens was focusing inconsistently. 

In what respect are 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 better than 100mm USM Macro or 100mm L Macro?  Just trying to compare.


----------



## seekthedragon (Oct 10, 2013)

I never had any other prime, but the 100L is just awesome for both portraits and handheld macro (jewels, small details, flowers, etc.) I don't think you would regret it. It performs better for portraits than my 70-200 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2013)

skoobey said:


> In what respect are 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 better than 100mm USM Macro or 100mm L Macro?  Just trying to compare.



The 85/1.8 and 100/2 focus faster than the macro lenses, and provide more subject isolation. In a studio setting, those may not matter much (with strobes and backdrops, I often stop down quite a bit). 

The IS can really help with handheld close ups, although it's only good for ~2 stops at 1:1.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > In what respect are 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 better than 100mm USM Macro or 100mm L Macro?  Just trying to compare.
> ...



I don't care abut bokeh much if that's what you mean by subject isolation(so I haven't mentioned it in the OP, I guess I should say I don't care 'bout it), unless it is REALLY strange, like super crisp or super-broken up like some Sigmas, I don't want that. 

I shoot mostly f10-f16. 

I am more concerned about the "quality" of the image like contrast, chromatic problems, flare, sharpness at macro level, sharpness when stopped down, sharpness at 10ft 15ft 20ft 30ft. That kind of info.


----------



## chas1113 (Oct 10, 2013)

I have a 5DII, EF 24-105mm L and had the 100mm macro USM and traded up to the 100L. My experience was exactly the same as yours: I found AF on the 100 macro difficult to nail. The zoom is great but not the sharpest at 100mm. The L is the one you want; I absolutely love mine for portraits and close-up/macro work.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 10, 2013)

chas1113 said:


> I have a 5DII, EF 24-105mm L and had the 100mm macro USM and traded up to the 100L. My experience was exactly the same as yours: I found AF on the 100 macro difficult to nail. The zoom is great but not the sharpest at 100mm. The L is the one you want; I absolutely love mine for portraits and close-up/macro work.



How about distortion? Had any trouble with that?  24-105 is great all-rounder but distortion at 100 complimented by softness is just killing me. I love it most at 35-65(it's straight range).

It is really important for me that the lens is super straight, super sharp and the colors to be right.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 10, 2013)

seekthedragon said:


> I never had any other prime, but the 100L is just awesome for both portraits and handheld macro (jewels, small details, flowers, etc.) I don't think you would regret it. It performs better for portraits than my 70-200 II.



That's also what I was wondering, as I know 70-200 is best at 100mm.


----------



## rs (Oct 11, 2013)

skoobey said:


> How about distortion? Had any trouble with that?  24-105 is great all-rounder but distortion at 100 complimented by softness is just killing me. I love it most at 35-65(it's straight range).
> 
> It is really important for me that the lens is super straight, super sharp and the colors to be right.


It seems ok to me:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=4&FLIComp=0&Lens=355&Camera=453&LensComp=674


----------



## chas1113 (Oct 11, 2013)

skoobey said:


> chas1113 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 5DII, EF 24-105mm L and had the 100mm macro USM and traded up to the 100L. My experience was exactly the same as yours: I found AF on the 100 macro difficult to nail. The zoom is great but not the sharpest at 100mm. The L is the one you want; I absolutely love mine for portraits and close-up/macro work.
> ...



I haven't used the 100L at less than 5-6 feet for portraits (i.e. studio setting), but outdoor portraits show good sharpness, contrast and color as well as good subject isolation at up to, say, 40 feet. I have found distortion to be very low with negligible CA. And mine is a refurb bought through the Canon store.

The EF 100mm macro USM was a great lens.....the L improves upon it in almost every way IMHO.


----------



## chas1113 (Oct 11, 2013)

Oh, forgot to add, I feel perfectly confident shooting it wide open....it's THAT sharp. For reference, I never shoot my 24-105 at less than 5.6, it's just too soft. Similarly, my 70-300L is shot at a minimum of 5.6, but usually at f/8 because there,it just has that pop I love. The 100mm L is about the only lens I own that I am comfortable shooting wide open all the time. I don't even shoot my Zeiss C/Y 85 wide open — and that lens is super sharp.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2013)

chas1113 said:


> Oh, forgot to add, I feel perfectly confident shooting it wide open....it's THAT sharp. For reference, I never shoot my 24-105 at less than 5.6, it's just too soft. Similarly, my 70-300L is shot at a minimum of 5.6, but usually at f/8 because there,it just has that pop I love. The 100mm L is about the only lens I own that I am comfortable shooting wide open all the time. I don't even shoot my Zeiss C/Y 85 wide open — and that lens is super sharp.



Good to know, but I really do only shoot stopped down, so that 10-16 sharpness is *really* important to me. 

Also good to know is that it remains sharp for up to 40ft, longest I shoot is probably 50ft, and I can afford to open up the aperture when shooting form further away.

Obviously the most important thing is that it is sharp in portraits and beauty as well as products, as it is where the softness really is obvious.


----------



## chas1113 (Oct 11, 2013)

skoobey said:


> chas1113 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, forgot to add, I feel perfectly confident shooting it wide open....it's THAT sharp. For reference, I never shoot my 24-105 at less than 5.6, it's just too soft. Similarly, my 70-300L is shot at a minimum of 5.6, but usually at f/8 because there,it just has that pop I love. The 100mm L is about the only lens I own that I am comfortable shooting wide open all the time. I don't even shoot my Zeiss C/Y 85 wide open — and that lens is super sharp.
> ...




No worries, then. Watch diffusion beyond f/16 maybe.


----------



## chas1113 (Oct 11, 2013)

Not diffusion, I meant diffraction. ???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2013)

skoobey said:


> Autofocus has to be great, I tested a used 100mm USM MAcro, and it back-focused a lot, and I'm not sure is that a common problem, as many have complained about the early examples of this lens, and I don't know how old that lens was. ;D



that's why they created micro-focus adjustment (unless the problem was random?)



> Distortion is my big concern. How much is there in both of them when it comes to barrel/pincushion?



no problem bro, these are not only primes but macro primes, forget about distortion



> Sharpness is a must, 24-105 is reasonably sharp, but I really hope to get something much sharper.



both are sharper for sure!

the L averages a touch crisper and the best L is better than the best non-L, although a tops non-L is better than a lesser L




> Bokeh is important only as far is looks good, not broken up too much (like 50 1.8 for example), and not jaggedy, but I shoot stopped down exclusively, so DOF is really nothing to consider.



One thing is that the L is a bit faster than stated (either that or the non-L a bit slower), shoot both at f/2.8 and the L has a bit less DOF and lets in a bit more light, maybe call it f/2.6 for L vs f/2.8 for non-L?

IS can help for no flash macros, you still need great light though and might want to use burst mode to make sure at least one of burst is perfect; it also helps to stabilize VF to compose at macro levels



> Price is important, but I'll stretch if I must.



well the non-L is certainly a good value



> Anyone has experience with either/both? Your opinion?



had both, sold the non-L (but it was very good, the L did have IS and was a little bit better optically, not a huge deal by any means but it could be noticed, not that you go wrong optically with the non-L)


----------



## sleepnever (Oct 11, 2013)

I have a 5D3 and a 100mm f/2.8L Macro and I love love love it for portraits. It is insanely sharp. Oh and its great for macro too =)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2013)

skoobey said:


> chas1113 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, forgot to add, I feel perfectly confident shooting it wide open....it's THAT sharp. For reference, I never shoot my 24-105 at less than 5.6, it's just too soft. Similarly, my 70-300L is shot at a minimum of 5.6, but usually at f/8 because there,it just has that pop I love. The 100mm L is about the only lens I own that I am comfortable shooting wide open all the time. I don't even shoot my Zeiss C/Y 85 wide open — and that lens is super sharp.
> ...



But even for your portrait work???? f/10-f/16???? Also any lens at f/16 will look soft on a 5D2, to much diffraction, even at f/10 a super sharp lens like this won't be as crisp as at f/6.3 or even f/2.8 in this case.



> Also good to know is that it remains sharp for up to 40ft, longest I shoot is probably 50ft, and I can afford to open up the aperture when shooting form further away.



I ended up taking a few snaps at super long distance maybe 200' during a fall foliage trip and it really had some super biting pop to it! It's definitely not adjusted to only pop at macro distances.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 11, 2013)

I have had both. I couldn't tell the difference in my photos. I like the IS for steady framing with handheld close ups. I shoot this lens with strobes 99% of the time so I don't know about the IS for that, but the framing advantage gets overlooked.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2013)

chas1113 said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > chas1113 said:
> ...



Rarely would I go for smaller than f16, maybe for some products, but even then it's in a studio, so the falloff is not that noticable. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But even for your portrait work???? f/10-f/16???? Also any lens at f/16 will look soft on a 5D2, to much diffraction, even at f/10 a super sharp lens like this won't be as crisp as at f/6.3 or even f/2.8 in this case.



Yes, I don't shoot actors, I shoot models, and in fashion everything has to be in focus. I go up to 7.1 perhaps, but NEVER higher.

10-16 is my sweetspot for having the whole subject sharp, and still not get a dramatic dof beyond and in front.

So, the bokeh is good when stopped down? I notice bokeh on some lenses is quite choppy and not smooth when stopped down?


----------



## chas1113 (Oct 11, 2013)

I believe it has 9 blades for improved OOF areas. Is it creamy 135L smooth? No. But it is worlds better than the choppy background blur of the EF 24-105L. I'm sure you know what THAT looks like.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2013)

chas1113 said:


> I believe it has 9 blades for improved OOF areas. Is it creamy 135L smooth? No. But it is worlds better than the choppy background blur of the EF 24-105L. I'm sure you know what THAT looks like.



Let me tell you, it's not bad in some instances, but when there are plenty of small leaves or tiles in frame it goes ZIG ZAG. hahaha


----------



## chas1113 (Oct 11, 2013)

skoobey said:


> chas1113 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe it has 9 blades for improved OOF areas. Is it creamy 135L smooth? No. But it is worlds better than the choppy background blur of the EF 24-105L. I'm sure you know what THAT looks like.
> ...



Exactly! Don't get me wrong, I love my 24-105L, but if you're grabbing a quick portrait, you really need to watch your background textures/subject-to-background distance with that lens. To be honest, I bought the 100L for macro and I'm using it more for casual portraits, the rounded aperture blades have a nice "calming" effect on skin tones and yet, the overall rendering of the lens is razor sharp. I think you'll get a lot of use out of it. I have.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2013)

chas1113 said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > chas1113 said:
> ...



I'm getting more and more convinced that this lens is what I read it was.


----------



## mifho (Oct 11, 2013)

The cost of 100mm USM + ringlight flash = 100L. If you're doing macro, you need good light and a ringlight makes macro easy. Otherwise, you're going to need to get your flash off camera and close to the subject. In broad daylight, you can't get as close as MFD without the lens starting to cast shadows on your subject. Plus, with the ringlight, you can get those Terry Richardson type of portraits.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 11, 2013)

skoobey said:


> I was wondering what are your opinions on 100mm Canon macro lenses?
> 
> I plan on buying something that is great both for fashion macro (face-close ups, jewelry, eyes, lips, nails) and portrait (including full body shots). I dislike changing lenses, and I only have one body(edit it's a 5d mkII) to work with.
> 
> ...


Its hard to have your cake and eat it too, but its possible. You can get more improvement from your 24-105L than from buying a 100L without DLO, and its free!

You have a very good lens, 24-105L. Free Canon DPP software with DLO removes or at least minimises distortion. It even reduces diffusion effects and distortion from the AA filter.

If that does not work out, you might want to set your sights on a much more expensive lens that a 100L.

Give it a try before buying a new lens.
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/dlo/factor/index.html


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2013)

Its hard to have your cake and eat it too, but its possible. You can get more improvement from your 24-105L than from buying a 100L without DLO, and its free!

You have a very good lens, 24-105L. Free Canon DPP software with DLO removes or at least minimises distortion. It even reduces diffusion effects and distortion from the AA filter.

If that does not work out, you might want to set your sights on a much more expensive lens that a 100L.

Give it a try before buying a new lens.
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/dlo/factor/index.html
[/quote]

I'll se what id does, but it sure doesn't make 70mm image look like 100mm, or a general purpose lens shoot macro, or soft lens shoot sharp, or straighten the image without distorting the subject.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering what are your opinions on 100mm Canon macro lenses?
> ...



This is THE WORST PROGRAM I HAVE EVER USED!!! ahhaha 

First I had to find the disc that came with the camera. Done that. Installed it.

It is super slow.

When I do that DLO thing the preview is so zoomed in, there is no way to see how it affects the image, but it is sharpening something.

Then I click save.

It saves the settings, but they are not affecting the original file, and they cannot be exported as individual TFFs, so I basically did nothing. 

EDIT: Okay, so it can be exported as individual TIFFs, you go to batch for some reason and only select one image, and it still looks so bad compared to the Capture One conversion. If we could do miracles, we would live in a much much better world. ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 11, 2013)

skoobey said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...


Download the latest version updates. You do not have to use batch. You must download the files for the specific lens you are correcting.
It is true, its slow, its doing a huge amount of processing. It does save the changes to the original cr2 file, and can be exported as tiff, DNG, or jpeg. It can open in photoshop, Lightroom, or wherever editor you use. Capture one cannot read the updated CR2 file, but that's not Canon's fault.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 11, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I see no difference in the original file except that Capture One no longer opens it? 

Why is it called batch processing if it can process a single image? ahhaha

It is a nice way to put a bit more detail into your images, so thank you for this tip, but it is not constructive for most of my work, as it gives me no option to use Capture One.

Knowlege is power, so thank you. 

I still plan on buying a prime, though. Imagine what this could do to an already superior image.

*How about just getting a 85mm and 100mm macro USM(not L)???

I can't afford the L and the 85 at the moment, and I know I love 85 for beauty.

Is that much difference in the L?*


----------



## skoobey (Oct 12, 2013)

Any suggestions?


----------

