Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:58 am

I'm looking for a good (affordable) piece of glass for use on a Canon 50D.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro ?

Any thoughts, recommendations, suggestions, considerations?

The Canon MP-E 65mm will come later

Craig

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:17 am

Price of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM should drop considerably (especially used) as Canon has recently brought out the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM.
In Canada, new prices are $730.00 and $1249.00 respectively.

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:50 pm

I have never owned a major brand 100mm macro, but the near-unanimous opinion seems to be that the Canon/Tamron/Sigma lenses in the 90-105mm range are all very good. I understand that the Tamron has a few different (which doesn't necessarily mean better or worse) quirks because of the lens design not being internal focus but am not experienced with the lens to pontificate about 'em.

The price gap between the existing Canon macro and the new stabilized version is so large that I'm not convinced prices will drop on the older lens, though I'd be delighted if they do!

I remain wedded to my trusty Canon 180 macro, but there seem to be a _LOT_ of favorable comments about the relative compactness and good image quality of the Sigma 150mm macro. If that isn't too much lens for your uses, it might be worth investigating, but I've never used one myself.

For myself, the "ultimate set of macro lenses" is 50mm, 180mm, and MP-E-65, but that will change for each of us depending on what you seek to photograph.

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:39 pm

Craig,

I have the Canon EF-S 60mm 2.8 USM. Dont shoot outdoors a lot, so I dont need the extra working distance. Sharpness & contrast (& build quality) are very good, and I thought the price was better than the 100mm.

Good luck,
Barry

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:55 am

Reviews here:-

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-c ... rt--review

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Canon ... o-USM-4394

Of course when deciding on lenses for APS-C sized digital sensors we should not get into the old 35mm mentality. The 100mm has the same angle of view on an APS-C sensored Canon as a 160mm on a 35mm camera due to the Canon's 1.6 crop factor. The 135mm was the classic insect lens on 35mm, so the 100mm on APS-C digital gives more working room than that did if you need to fill the frame.

DaveW

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:12 am

Thanks for the input

Haven't decided which way to go yet.

In Australia, the retail prices are as follows (approximately):

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM = AUD $547.00
Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM = AUD $787.00
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM = AUD $1400.00
Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 = AUD $1,200.00 to $1794.71 (depends on the retailer) Have not seen many S/H ones for sale of late.

Craig

elf · Post by **elf** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:21 am

DaveW wrote:Reviews here:-

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-c ... rt--review

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Canon ... o-USM-4394

Of course when deciding on lenses for APS-C sized digital sensors we should not get into the old 35mm mentality. The 100mm has the same angle of view on an APS-C sensored Canon as a 160mm on a 35mm camera due to the Canon's 1.6 crop factor. The 135mm was the classic insect lens on 35mm, so the 100mm on APS-C digital gives more working room than that did if you need to fill the frame.

DaveW

Wouldn't the working distance be the same on both 35mm and APS-C with only the FOV changing? I think the only advantage/disadvantage would be when shooting at greater than the minimum focus distance.

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:43 am

The working distance at the same magnification would remain the same as you say. Why you gain more working distance on the smaller sensor is you don't need as much magnification to fill the frame at the taking stage. Obviously to get the same sized print you then have to enlarge the smaller image more.

If say with a 35mm sensor you wished the subject to occupy it's full height, shall we say that requires 1:1 magnification, if you used a smaller sensor that was only half as high that would only require 1:2 magnification to fill it, therefore you gain extra working distance with the same lens due to requiring less magnification to fill the smaller frame as I understand it?

DaveW

elf · Post by **elf** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:51 am

DaveW wrote:The working distance at the same magnification would remain the same as you say. Why you gain more working distance on the smaller sensor is you don't need as much magnification to fill the frame at the taking stage. Obviously to get the same sized print you then have to enlarge the smaller image more.

If say with a 35mm sensor you wished the subject to occupy it's full height, shall we say that requires 1:1 magnification, if you used a smaller sensor that was only half as high that would only require 1:2 magnification to fill it, therefore you gain extra working distance with the same lens due to requiring less magnification to fill the smaller frame as I understand it?

DaveW

I think that's right, you trade magnification for working distance. Depending on how you look at it, it could be either an advantage or a disadvantage.