# Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 27, 2012)

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro


----------



## Mendolera (Nov 27, 2012)

This is my next planned lens to get... While my camera fund is spent getting the 5D3 recently, this is definitely next on my list. I had the original 100mm Canon Macro and sold it to fund the 100-400, but really want the IS on it.

Plus the 100mm now becomes well 100mm for me, when before it was ~160mm..

Anybody compare this to the new sigma 150 f2.8 OS?


----------



## kadosh32000 (Nov 27, 2012)

I love this lense, but I noticed it's a little noisy when focusing and not as fast as a I'd like when in low contrast situations. Not a biggie though. It's the sharpest lens I've had so far. 

Canon 1DX
Canon 7D
50mm f1.4
17-40mm f4
70-200mm f2.8 IS
100mm macro f2.8
24-105mm f4


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 27, 2012)

Haha!


I've LITERALLY just ordered one of these! I'm talking an HOUR ago!


Couldn't wait before, now I'm rabid. ;D


----------



## Aggie92 (Nov 27, 2012)

I am obsessed with owning this lens. My walk around zoom is garbage, yet I would rather save up for this than to replace my crummy kit lens. Everywhere I take my camera I see macro opportunities.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2012)

Ahhh, the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. My first L-series lens. My 'gateway drug'. Love it. It's mounted on my camera right now, just waiting for me to pick it up and use it.


----------



## facedodge (Nov 27, 2012)

I've got the 90mm Tamron Macro... If you can't afford the 100L, I've been pleased with the Tamron. It is a dedicated macro lens for me as I have the 135L if I want portraits. AF is decent, but I tend to do live view manual focus for macro anyway. It's very sharp. I'm sure it compares to the 100L in IQ.


----------



## PavelR (Nov 27, 2012)

Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)


----------



## Scott911 (Nov 27, 2012)

I've owned the non-L version of the lens many, many years... wonder lens. I've never thought of upgrading to L because I couldn't imagine a sharper lens, and to me, the IS hold little value as nearly all macro must really be done on a tripod...

I'm curious about the difference the rounded aperture blades of the L makes - I can't say I've ever been bothered with the non-L's effect, but it would be interested to see an A - B comparison between the lenses that highlights this difference.


----------



## LuCoOc (Nov 27, 2012)

Great review - I totally agree. A remarkable piece of engeneering.

I used this lens a lot... until i got my 85 1.2 II which is now mounted most of the time because the 100L is just a little too long for portraits on APS-C.

But still, my most favorite shots where taken with it.


----------



## Standard (Nov 27, 2012)

> Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?



I own both. And quite frankly, I don't obsess over whether image quality at f/2.8 is better on one over the other. Both are stellar lenses and each have qualities that are unique to different tasks.


----------



## Area256 (Nov 27, 2012)

This lens is outstanding for macro, I just can't say enough good things this about it. The bokeh is outstandingly creamy. And wow is it sharp in macro and with close subjects. However it isn't as sharp as you get past 10 feet. I tried shooting people on a stage and some landscapes with this lens, and found it to only be about as sharp as the 24-105mm f/4L at the same aptreture and focal length.

While I have'd used them yet, I wouldn't be surprised if the 70-200 f/2.8L and 135 f/2L would be a little sharper for longer distance work.

However you have to ask just how much sharpness you really need, and for all my applications the 100mm f/2.8L is more than good enough even at longer focus distances.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 27, 2012)

I've been wanting to add a macro to my lens bag. This one might be it, or the 180L.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 27, 2012)

PavelR said:


> Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
> Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
> (Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)



I have them both and love them both, but I don't think I've ever made a direct comparison (I probably have a slight bias in favor of the 135 but I'm not sure I have anything to back it up). In what way(s) do you think the 135 is the "clear winner"?


----------



## infared (Nov 27, 2012)

I use it on a 5DIII...I was hesitant to buy a $1000 (when I bought it) lens that was made of plastic...but I there is no looking back...It is one of the SHARPEST (if not THE sharpest) lenses I own..(check my list ...that is saying something)...Just like justin...every time I shoot something with it ...I put the images up on the screen and I am bowled over with the sharpness...
Great lens..oh yeah...hey ...it shoots macro too, I am told!?!?!?!?! LOL!


----------



## matt2491 (Nov 27, 2012)

I LOVE my 100L! Super sharp, super fast AF, and super creamy images!


----------



## Pieces Of E (Nov 27, 2012)

Um, yes this is a great lens. Been out a couple years now. Why a review now? And if it has Hybrid IS, why doesn't Canon use Hybrid IS on all their IS lenses?


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 27, 2012)

Pieces Of E said:


> Um, yes this is a great lens. Been out a couple years now. Why a review now? And if it has Hybrid IS, why doesn't Canon use Hybrid IS on all their IS lenses?



Why not review now? Lenses last years or decades in the marketplace.

As for hybrid IS, Its really only useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances. Perfect for macro lenses.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 27, 2012)

PavelR said:


> Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
> Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?
> (Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)



I own both as well. I would guess that the 135L is slightly sharper, but both produce stunning images with great bokeh. I use them for different things, with some overlap, and would be very hard pressed to part with either of them.


----------



## Pieces Of E (Nov 27, 2012)

As for hybrid IS, Its really only useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances. Perfect for macro lenses


Thank you for educating me on that feature.


----------



## PavelR (Nov 27, 2012)

sdsr said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
> ...


I used it several times in portrait shooting occasions and the images are visibly softer comparing it with the result from 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 (all at F 2.8 [I usually use F 2.0-2.8]), thus I asked the question, whether my copy of 100L is not under the average... (Other than portrait images with focus distance about 15-20 meters are quite OK.) (+ in direct comparison with Nikon 105 VR images taken with my 100L looks pretty softer too - especially till F4 of contrasty jewelry with small details...)


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2012)

I had borrowed the L and the non L version of the lens and went walkabout to try them out. With the non L version I was trying to take butterfly pictures in flight..... with the L version I did.... and holy C**P!!! were they sharp!!!!!!


----------



## alejandrormz (Nov 27, 2012)

How does the upcoming Tamron 90mm f/2.8 VC lens compare to this one?

Any thoughts?


----------



## gilmorephoto (Nov 27, 2012)

LOVE THE 100mm L!

Crazy sharp. Perfect for both portrait and macro. +1.


----------



## Ew (Nov 27, 2012)

Putting IS aside, ive been happy with the 100/2 - but have always had the "wondering" nag. 

Anyone own(ed) both and could shed some light on this?? T.I.A.


----------



## brad-man (Nov 27, 2012)

PavelR said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > PavelR said:
> ...



I did a great deal of research before picking up this lens a year ago, and yours is the first comment I have ever seen that included the word soft. This lens is wicked sharp whether used for macro or telephoto. If you have already micro-adjusted it to your camera, then you should certainly send it back to Canon to be calibrated as you are missing out on a wonderful piece of glass...


----------



## kubelik (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm with brad-man, "soft" would be the absolute last word I use to describe the 100 f/2.8 L ... bitingly sharp is more like it. you should definitely get that checked out by Canon.


----------



## Biggles (Nov 28, 2012)

I am slowly saving up for this lens after trying a friend's copy for a month - I was amazed at how rich the colours were compared to my 60mm macro. Plus the IS is invaluable since I like handheld macro. 

One alternative however, would be to put the money towards a 70-200mm IS, probably the f4, to gain the upgraded benefit of that lens for telephoto, plus buy a 500D close-up filter to turn it into a macro. I have seen some stunning photos taken with that setup, since that lens is very very good too. Does anybody have experience with that setup to comment on how it would compare overall with the 100L for macro? I would guess it is less flexible somehow, but I don't know in what way.


----------



## infared (Nov 28, 2012)

brad-man said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...




Perhaps you got a bad copy...Mine is sharp as a tack.


----------



## PavelR (Nov 28, 2012)

Thank you, brad-man and infared, for the information.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2012)

kubelik said:


> I'm with brad-man, "soft" would be the absolute last word I use to describe the 100 f/2.8 L ... bitingly sharp is more like it. you should definitely get that checked out by Canon.



+1 - it's wickedly sharp.


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 28, 2012)

While I appreciate the reviews, it seems like this is an absolute no brainer. 
Everyone knows this lens is awesome... It's basically a fact at this point.
It's like having an article about how Scarlett Johansson is hot, or if Thailand has nice beaches.....
The most interesting thing I learned from this review is that the 100L was Neuro's first L lens! WOW, I guess APS-C cameras are the gateway drug of the camera world as you are apparently fully addicted to the hard stuff(Pro series bodies and White Lenses.)
Neuro, can I ask what you were interested in before you started stockpiling lenses and camera gear?
Cheers! 
Looking forward to some more less obvious reviews in the future


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> Neuro, can I ask what you were interested in before you started stockpiling lenses and camera gear?



Saving money. 

Seriously, I shot film long ago, developed lots of Tmax and printed back when burning and dodging meant wands and masks under an enlarger. Then it was film P&S, then digital P&S, then I had a child, and once she started moving the P&S just couldn't keep up. So that re-ignited my hobby...only now my income is more conducive. It was a little eye opening to think that the 600 II cost more than my gross income for a whole year as a grad student...


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 28, 2012)

I'm just enjoying thinking of Neuro using the 600 II as a lens for family shots......
"Okay kids, you stand on this side of the Grand Canyon, I'll be back at home on CR taking family portraits of you from the window. Smile!"


----------



## tnargs (Nov 28, 2012)

Pieces Of E said:


> "As for hybrid IS, Its really only useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances. Perfect for macro lenses"
> 
> Thank you for educating me on that feature.



That is a very poorly worded comment.

What it should have said is, 

"Hybrid is every bit as useful as conventional IS in a myriad of circumstances, possibly even slightly better, but additionally it is useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances, where conventional IS loses about half to 3/4 of its effectiveness".

That's better.


----------



## tnargs (Nov 28, 2012)

PavelR said:


> Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?
> Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?


Does your 100L have IS?


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 28, 2012)

tnargs said:


> Pieces Of E said:
> 
> 
> > "As for hybrid IS, Its really only useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances. Perfect for macro lenses"
> ...



I love quotes taken out of context. :


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Nov 28, 2012)

one of my best tele's compare to the 135L the 135 bokeh is more buttery due to its 2/f but the 100mm rocks tops in its class of 2.8 and for macro its nothing but sharp all the way. one of the sharpest macro L glass out there. im happy to own this gem.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2012)

I have never owned nor tried a macro lens before, but after reading this review and comments from CR members........dam I want one


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 28, 2012)

It makes me laugh when reviewers of the newer lenses state that they feel plasticy compared to older lenses. Canon have recently started using Aluminium in their casing designs and once coated, this metal doesn't feel cold to touch like the older metal formulas employed. So most people think that the casing for this lens is made from engineering plastic, when it's mostly made from a far better material. The same is true for sections of the new 24-70IIL and 8-16L fisheye.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 28, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> While I appreciate the reviews, it seems like this is an absolute no brainer.
> Everyone knows this lens is awesome... It's basically a fact at this point.
> Looking forward to some more less obvious reviews in the future



We're working on producing reviews of new lenses, but also filling in the gaps on older ones too, nobody says you need to read the ones that are a foregone conclusion to you, since not everyone knows everything about every lens... or maybe some people do. I'm looking forward to getting at some lenses I've never used, while I still have to write reviews on others I'm not particularly interested in.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 28, 2012)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It makes me laugh when reviewers of the newer lenses state that they feel plasticy compared to older lenses. Canon have recently started using Aluminium in their casing designs and once coated, this metal doesn't feel cold to touch like the older metal formulas employed. So most people think that the casing for this lens is made from engineering plastic, when it's mostly made from a far better material. The same is true for sections of the new 24-70IIL and 8-16L fisheye.



I'm with you, actually, I'm fine with the coating and appreciate the lessened weight - but I know if I *DON'T* mention it, someone will call me out on it.


----------



## rpt (Nov 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> +1 - it's wickedly sharp.


How did you do this one? Macro tubes? Could you describe it?

Thanks.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 28, 2012)

> I love quotes taken out of context. :



Welcome to my life.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2012)

rpt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > +1 - it's wickedly sharp.
> ...



That was a 100% crop of this image:




EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/60 s, f/8, ISO 400, 430EX II on Manfrotto 233B flash bracket via OC-E3

No tubes, just the bare lens on a 7D. With the flash bracket, the flash head was right at the end of the lens hood (with a StoFen on the flash). I was just walking along a trail, and the fly was sitting there on a bush. I pointed, I clicked...


----------



## rpt (Nov 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Ah! 7D! I was wondering if that was taken with your 1DX. Thanks for the explanation. I do not get to see the eyes in such detail with my 5D3 and the 100L Macro. I think I will get some macro tubes...


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 28, 2012)

tnargs said:


> "Hybrid is every bit as useful as conventional IS in a myriad of circumstances, possibly even slightly better, but additionally it is useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances, where conventional IS loses about half to 3/4 of its effectiveness".



Even correctly quoted  I would definitely dispute the last part - I've got the 100mm non-L and L with IS and feel safe enough to make the statement that nearing 1:1 the effect of IS rapidly degrades to nearly non-existent. 

This has been discussed n-times before and I don't want to repeat it here, but I'd invite everyone who chooses the 100L _because of the IS_ for macro and over other macro lenses: See for yourself, do the same handheld shots with and without IS a couple of times and compare - even just looking through the viewfinder it is instantly obvious that the nearer the object is, the less stabilizing effect IS has (but it makes a reassuring sound ). The 100L is a great macro lens, but the IS works best (or at all) for distances of 10-15cm+ (end of lens to object) or dual use as a portrait lens.


----------



## rpt (Nov 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > "Hybrid is every bit as useful as conventional IS in a myriad of circumstances, possibly even slightly better, but additionally it is useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances, where conventional IS loses about half to 3/4 of its effectiveness".
> ...


So that is what it is! I thought I was to blame. You see, my hands tremble more now than they used to. I will check this out.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > "Hybrid is every bit as useful as conventional IS in a myriad of circumstances, possibly even slightly better, but additionally it is useful at 1:1 or near 1:1 focusing distances, where conventional IS loses about half to 3/4 of its effectiveness".
> ...



Totally agree - the IS is helpful to a point, but anyone doing macro work will still need a sturdy tripod.


----------



## Jesse (Nov 28, 2012)

Something that doesn't get mentioned enough around here in reviews of this lens - it also happens to be one of the BEST lenses for video.


----------



## phixional ninja (Nov 28, 2012)

Gah! I can't express how much I love this lens. I still desperately need to get some sort of bracket to put my flash in a useful position for macro work, but being able to get something like this:





at 1/60s handheld in natural light still blows my mind.

Another favorite, because I can't not share photos from this lens:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2012)

phixional ninja said:


> I still desperately need to get some sort of bracket to put my flash in a useful position for macro work,



Great shots!

A reasonable budget option is one I have, a Manfrotto 233B with a Giottos MH1004 mini ballhead on the end (and you may want an OC-E3 or 3rd party equivalent, although you could trigger with the onboard flash).

I also have an RRS flash bracket (B91-QR with FAQREX-2 extender), and a couple of Wimberley F-2 brackets - those are, respectively, expensive and moderately expensive options, but very good quality.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2012)

phixional ninja said:


> Gah! I can't express how much I love this lens. I still desperately need to get some sort of bracket to put my flash in a useful position for macro work, but being able to get something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you guys need to stop showing your beatiful photos. I'm already broke after 5D III + 24-70 II purchase this year ;D ;D ;D


----------



## rpt (Nov 28, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm already broke after 5D III + 24-70 II purchase this year ;D ;D ;D


So? If you are motivated enough, go rob a bank!


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2012)

rpt said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm already broke after 5D III + 24-70 II purchase this year ;D ;D ;D
> ...



Sounds like a good idea...."give me the $$$ or I'll shoot you with my 5D III + 24-70" ;D ;D ;D


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 28, 2012)

I was using mine today and was struck by a couple of practical thoughts that I don't think were covered by the review. Regarding the ET-73 lens hood that is included:

1) It has a great matte finish that matches the lens body, and unlike the lens hood of so many of my "L" lens that I have owned, seems highly resistant to marking. I hate trying to sell a lens where the body is flawless but the hood looks like worms have been tunneling over it.

2) The hood, when reversed, fits tightly around the lens body with a maximum of about a 1/4" clearance. That means that it takes up far less bag space than some lens whose hoods add so much width. It is a reasonably long lens, but because of the narrow hood takes us less width than either my 135L or 24-105L.

Little things that add up in the end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> It has a great matte finish that matches the lens body, and unlike the lens hood of so many of my "L" lens that I have owned, seems highly resistant to marking.



That's Canon's new hood finish - the 70-200 II has it, etc. The 70-200 II also added the locking hood design that the 24-70 II uses, too. Both are great features, IMO.


----------



## phixional ninja (Nov 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> phixional ninja said:
> 
> 
> > I still desperately need to get some sort of bracket to put my flash in a useful position for macro work,
> ...



Thanks!

The Wimberley F-2 is what I've had my eye on. I like how low profile it is, I think I'd feel self conscious wandering around the forest or nature preserve with the Manfrotto (I know, the line between small flash bracket and big flash bracket is probably not the line beyond which people start looking at me funny, that line is certainly behind me).

Now I just need to find some money, and convince myself to finally go for the bracket instead of putting it towards perhaps upgrading my 70-200 f4L to the 70-300L...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

Took this yesterday and was reminded of just how awesome this lens is. Detail is fantastic! A little "camera porn" called "Kodak Moment".




Kodak Moment by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## rpt (Nov 29, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


There you go! That's the positive attitude to show! Now all you need is an accomplice who will hold a boombox playing the Boney M song *"Ma Baker"* (listening to it as I post)...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2012)

phixional ninja said:


> The Wimberley F-2 is what I've had my eye on. I like how low profile it is, I think I'd feel self conscious wandering around the forest or nature preserve with the Manfrotto (I know, the line between small flash bracket and big flash bracket is probably not the line beyond which people start looking at me funny, that line is certainly behind me).



The Wimberley F-2 is much smaller when folded up, but in use, it's not much different from the Manfrotto. Also, with the Wimberley you've got to have an Arca-Swiss type plate, ideally one oriented parallel to the lens, i.e. a lens plate on a tripod collar, or Wimberley's perpendicular plate or an RRS MPR CL. Having said that, I have mounted one on the upright portion of an RRS L-bracket, and it works fine. The Wimberley offers a lot more flexiblity in positioning. I use a pair of them for the heads of the MT-24 EX. The RRS setup is less flexible, but longer with the extender. 

If you think you'll look conspicuous with one flash on a bracket, you should see my setup - the MT-24 EX on the hotshoe with the heads on Wimberley F-2 brackets to light the subject from the front/side/top, with the RRS ring bracket with the extender and a 600EX-RT mounted on that on a coldshoe (optically slaved to the MT-24EX), sticking out well beyond the lens to light the background. Should take a picture of the rig...it looks even more imposing mounted on the RRS macro rail.


----------



## 1255 (Nov 29, 2012)

i LOVE this lens, absolutely outstanding


----------



## davinci52 (Nov 29, 2012)

Please forgive me for "raining on the parade" here, but in the tests conducted by Photodo, the Zeiss Macro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 beat the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro in virtually every optical parameter. Most particularly, its resolution was significantly better than the Canon. Yes, the Zeiss needs an extension tube to reach 1:1, but with the time, diligence, and tripod already required for macro work, that doesn't strike me as much of an issue (either lens will need an extension to go beyond 1:1 which is a fun zone as well). Lack of IS on the Zeiss when used for normal photography at 100mm focal length is perhaps an issue. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Wimberley F-2 is much smaller when folded up, but in use, it's not much different from the Manfrotto. Also, with the Wimberley you've got to have an Arca-Swiss type plate, ideally one oriented parallel to the lens, i.e. a lens plate on a tripod collar, or Wimberley's perpendicular plate or an RRS MPR CL. Having said that, I have mounted one on the upright portion of an RRS L-bracket, and it works fine. The Wimberley offers a lot more flexiblity in positioning. I use a pair of them for the heads of the MT-24 EX. The RRS setup is less flexible, but longer with the extender.
> 
> If you think you'll look conspicuous with one flash on a bracket, you should see my setup - the MT-24 EX on the hotshoe with the heads on Wimberley F-2 brackets to light the subject from the front/side/top, with the RRS ring bracket with the extender and a 600EX-RT mounted on that on a coldshoe (optically slaved to the MT-24EX), sticking out well beyond the lens to light the background. Should take a picture of the rig...it looks even more imposing mounted on the RRS macro rail.



At that point, is it still useful to have a MT-24 EX or to just use multiple flash heads? How often do you use the MT-24 on its own versus in a large set-up?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> At that point, is it still useful to have a MT-24 EX or to just use multiple flash heads? How often do you use the MT-24 on its own versus in a large set-up?



A fair bit, actually. Sometimes with the Canon ring mounting bracket, sometimes with the Wimberleys. Either way, with the MP-E 65mm (which is where I usually the MT-24 EX), the smaller heads allow me to get in a little closer, and that working distance is very short. The problem with the Canon mount is that at 4-5x, the angle of the heads is a little too acute, and the Wimberley offers more flexibility there. Often, I'll optically slave the 600 (or a 430, before I had the 600) and have that on a Joby Gorillapod for the background lighting.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> A fair bit, actually. Sometimes with the Canon ring mounting bracket, sometimes with the Wimberleys. Either way, with the MP-E 65mm (which is where I usually the MT-24 EX), the smaller heads allow me to get in a little closer, and that working distance is very short. The problem with the Canon mount is that at 4-5x, the angle of the heads is a little too acute, and the Wimberley offers more flexibility there. Often, I'll optically slave the 600 (or a 430, before I had the 600) and have that on a Joby Gorillapod for the background lighting.



How much of this equipment do you use with the 100L as opposed to the MP-E 65? Sorry for all the questions, but I am curious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> How much of this equipment do you use with the 100L as opposed to the MP-E 65? Sorry for all the questions, but I am curious.



Most of the time, with the MP-E 65mm. A lot of my 100L images are handheld with ambient light. But I've decided to try and do a lot of macro shooting this winter, with both lenses. Also, I'm using the setup with the 100L for water drops now.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 29, 2012)

rpt said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



I thought bank robbing music had to be "Foggy Mountain Breakdown", by Flatt and Scruggs....

Bunny and Clyde


----------



## skitron (Jan 8, 2013)

Regarding comments about this lens and "softness", I noticed with mine that when shooting as a short tele it is often, but not always, soft. So I tested more and discovered that it is always sharp with IS turned off (rather backwards considering the purpose of IS). So upon even more testing with IS on, I discovered if I half depress shutter button twice, it seems to do a better job. 

So on mine, the IS is a dud and of course it is out of warranty since Canon only gives a single year. 

I have a 70-200 IS II coming to replace my 200L 2.8 and can guarantee this will be the first aspect I'm checking out thoroughly. The 200 is very sharp and I'll just deal with the shake and lack of zoom if the 70-200 IS is anything like this 100L. It's pointless to have IS when switching it on pretty much guarantees a soft shot. The 24-105 IS seems to be pretty good, but then at f4 the DOF is greater.


----------



## skitron (Jan 11, 2013)

skitron said:


> ...I noticed with mine that when shooting as a short tele it is often, but not always, soft. So I tested more and discovered that it is always sharp with IS turned off (rather backwards considering the purpose of IS). So upon even more testing with IS on, I discovered if I half depress shutter button twice, it seems to do a better job.
> 
> So on mine, the IS is a dud...



[edit] I'm declaring this 100L as a dud after further testing. I put it on a tripod with IS off, aimed at a test chart about 6 feet away and used EOS utility to first defocus towards infinity, then use one-shot to focus. Then same thing only defocus towards close up first. It randomly misses about 3 out of 10 tries and the misses look to be off by about the same amount. My other lenses are fine doing the same test, including the Sigma 50.


----------



## R1-7D (Jan 11, 2013)

I think this is my new favourite lens. Got it for Christmas and I have hardly taken it off my camera. Shot this last night while playing around with our new kitten. You can see my reflection in her eye. It is such a sharp lens, I can't believe it!




E88A8565 by HadrianRobinson, on Flickr


----------



## rpt (Jan 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


That clip was funny. Besides, Foggy mountain or Ma Baker - whatever gets the dough! That is the important thing...


----------



## LOLID (Jan 29, 2013)

Anybody could please comment on how the *Canon 100mm f/2.8L* IS is compared to the newest version of the *Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG with OS* (IS)?

Isn't the Canon a bit short on a full-frame camera for macro?
Isn't the Sigma a bit long for portraits (still on a full-frame)?

Is the Sigma worth an additional 200$?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

O.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2013)

LOLID said:


> Isn't the Canon a bit short on a full-frame camera for macro?
> Isn't the Sigma a bit long for portraits (still on a full-frame)?



Even on crop I often add a 1.4x tc to the 100L for more working distance, the point about this lens is the hybrid is (esp. in combination with a good 7d/5d3-type af) and dual use as a 100mm portrait lens. As for portrait focal length, only you can tell what your preferred working distance & compression is, but you're bound to loose some flexibility with the sigma 150mm...


----------



## LOLID (Jan 29, 2013)

Thanks very much for your quick response Marsu42.

I am worried about the Hybrid IS since someone in this post said that, because of it, his/her photos were soft (and sharp when tuned off). Though, it was only 1 comment going that route.

Doesn't the OS system on the Sigma perform as well?

Marsu42, you are absolutely right about the flexibility of a 150mm for portraits (even on a fullframe).

Thanks again.
O.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2013)

LOLID said:


> I am worried about the Hybrid IS since someone in this post said that, because of it, his/her photos were soft (and sharp when tuned off). Though, it was only 1 comment going that route.



Nah, that's either a broken lens or people simply don't realize that IS doesn't stop the world around them and the effect diminishes to nearly zero when going near 1:1 mag. And with very fast shutter speeds you should turn IS off because the lens shutter speed is faster than the IS sampling rate resulting in a bit of blur.

The advantage of the hybrid is over other IS systems is that esp. with a 7d/5d3-type af system the lens speeds up the sample rate, so tiny adjustments are adjusted plus it also compensates for forward/back movement next to panning. It's a theoretical advantage esp. when shooting med distance handheld macros, but I wouldn't make a lens choice Canon/Sigma depend on the hybrid is - the downside is that it's noisier and might be more prone to failure since it's more complicated.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> LOLID said:
> 
> 
> > I am worried about the Hybrid IS since someone in this post said that, because of it, his/her photos were soft (and sharp when tuned off). Though, it was only 1 comment going that route.
> ...



agree with marsu, I don't buy the "IS makes it soft" thing at all, unless it's a broken lens. just this morning I spent tome extra time messing around with my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro and it delivers crisp images handheld at 1/15 shutter speed. if I'm patient I can get good-but-not-perfect images at 1/8.


----------



## LOLID (Aug 12, 2013)

I made a choice and since members have been kind enough to post some advises, I believe it is my duty to contribute in articulating my review of the lens (and choice).

I ended up buying the Canon 100L and not the Sigma 150mm.

+ Sharpness: excellent

+ Color and dynamic range: very good (though the tint seems to be a bit on the pink side, easily fixable in post-p)

+ Very versatile: great portrait lens (love the 100mm length / compression on a FF), interesting length for landscape photos (although I wished several times I had a zoom)

- Bokeh = barely decent. I wish it could provide the Bokeh quality of the Canon 50 1.4

- A bit short on a FF for tiny insect macro. By the way, to remedy this, could someone tell me what would be better a (series of) Tube(s) or an Extender x1.4 or x2 ?

- Autofocus seems a bit slow. But maybe I have a bad copy. And lately I have noticed I have an unsual low rate of keeper. Focus misses the mark - nothing is in sharp focus not only at 2.8 but even till 7.1 (and it's not shutter speed issue, neither an IS turned on issue). Not sure if it is an AFMA issue or if my 5D3 has a problem. My 5D3 does its job in terms of AF with the 17-40 but it was impossible to get more than a 2/10 keeper rate with the 50 1.4 that I ended up selling (same problem - nothing in focus). 
I read some people ship their body + lens to canon to make sure everything is okay. Is this free of charge?

Thanks for reading.
O.


----------



## JVLphoto (Aug 12, 2013)

LOLID said:


> I made a choice and since members have been kind enough to post some advises, I believe it is my duty to contribute in articulating my review of the lens (and choice).
> 
> I ended up buying the Canon 100L and not the Sigma 150mm.
> 
> ...



That's not my experience with the lens at all - for enlarging insects you'll want an extension tube to be able to focus even closer (extenders would allow you to shoot from farther away, but not necessarily frame the insect better).

Focus could be an issue on the focus limiter switch? And I'll also note that f/2.8 on a macro photo is incredibly thin, and I wouldn't expect much to be in focus at that. Have you tried a live-view manual focus, with IS off, on a tripod just to be absolutely sure? If that doesn't work then yeah - best to send it in while it's still under warranty.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 12, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> Focus could be an issue on the focus limiter switch? And I'll also note that f/2.8 on a macro photo is incredibly thin, and I wouldn't expect much to be in focus at that. Have you tried a live-view manual focus, with IS off, on a tripod just to be absolutely sure? If that doesn't work then yeah - best to send it in while it's still under warranty.



+1. Check the focus limiter switch. If it is in the range that you are trying to use it (non-macro in good light), then check live view. If live view is a lot better than PDAF, then send it to Canon to have it checked out. I had a lens that worked in LV fine but wasn't sharp until f/5.6 using PDAF. Canon adjusted the lens, and it was much better after.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 12, 2013)

LOLID said:


> - A bit short on a FF for tiny insect macro. By the way, to remedy this, could someone tell me what would be better a (series of) Tube(s) or an Extender x1.4 or x2 ?



Get the Kenko extender, works great though afaik has issues with afma on 6d/5d3 (check if kenko has updated the fw).



LOLID said:


> - Autofocus seems a bit slow. But maybe I have a bad copy.



Af is slow, this is a macro lens dual-usable for portraits, in this order.



LOLID said:


> And lately I have noticed I have an unsual low rate of keeper. Focus misses the mark - nothing is in sharp focus not only at 2.8 but even till 7.1



Try to determine if lens sharpness of the af system is the issue by shooting a chart with mf or contrast af. The 100L should be sharp even wide open, though this is nearly useless for macro b/c of the small dof.


----------



## LOLID (Aug 17, 2013)

Thanks guys for your advice guys.
I will check AF as you mentioned.
And will get a set of Kenko tubes as the Canon one(s) are ridiculously expensive.
O.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 18, 2013)

LOLID said:


> I made a choice and since members have been kind enough to post some advises, I believe it is my duty to contribute in articulating my review of the lens (and choice).
> 
> I ended up buying the Canon 100L and not the Sigma 150mm.
> 
> ...



I simply don't agree with this bolded part AT ALL. The bokeh on the 100L is beautifully soft and creamy and the rounded aperture blades ensure that the highlights stay round when stopped down. The bokeh from the 50mm f1/.4 isn't even close.


----------



## tnargs (Aug 19, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I simply don't agree with this bolded part AT ALL. The bokeh on the 100L is beautifully soft and creamy and the rounded aperture blades ensure that the highlights stay round when stopped down. The bokeh from the 50mm f1/.4 isn't even close.


Totally agree!


----------



## Bubba Jones (Jun 22, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Discuss the review of the Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro


To Justin VanLeeuwen,
In your review, Canon EF 100 f/2.8L, is an error in the second paragraph, "…The new lens complimented, rather than replaced…". It should read "…complemented…". Those two words have different meanings and usages.

Cordially,


----------



## brad-man (Jun 22, 2014)

Bubba Jones said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss the review of the Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
> ...



Glass houses and all that. It's OK. We know what both of you meant...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 22, 2014)

tnargs said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I simply don't agree with this bolded part AT ALL. The bokeh on the 100L is beautifully soft and creamy and the rounded aperture blades ensure that the highlights stay round when stopped down. The bokeh from the 50mm f1/.4 isn't even close.
> ...



The 50mm f1.4 USM's out of focus rendering is a little harsh compared to the 50 f1.2 L's
I've found the 100mm f2.8 L Macro lens to be very smooth in it's out of focus rendering too, although no better than most tele L lenses. The 135L and 85IIL spring to mind.

As to the 100mm f2.8 L Macro's AF speed, it's fast for a macro lens, but slow for a L lens.


----------

