Canon Macro options

bigredshark

bigredshark

bigredshark

Man of Honour
Joined
30 Jun 2005
Posts
9,515
Location
London Town!
My other half has decided she wants a Macro lens. She uses Canon, I use Nikon and I'm not a big macro user so I'm a little clueless here.

If it was Nikon I'd probably get her the 105 f/2.8 AF-S VR, so logically I'm looking for something similar. Canon have two 100mm f/2.8 macro options, an L and non-L version, she's used the non-L courtesy of a friend and quite liked it. Is the L version worth the extra cash, is the non-L version prone to disintegration or anything and is there something else I should be looking at?

Cheers folks

Oh, on a 5Dii...
 
I've got the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM lens. The build quality is very good. Optically it is excellent - in fact if Canon had decided to put a red ring around it no-one would have batted an eyelid.

I've no experience with the L version, though most of the reviews I have read put it slightly and only slightly ahead of the non-L version quality wise.

IS is the major difference. Is it worth nearly £300 more? Well Dpreview reviewed the lens and had this to say about the IS

"Of course the big story with this lens is Canon's new Hybrid IS, and it's important to understand the system's strengths and weaknesses. We found it highly effective at longer subject distances - under ideal conditions it delivers on the four stops benefit promised by Canon - but despite the new dual-sensor design it still doesn't provide so much benefit at close distances. At 1:1 we found it delivered little more than a stop of stabilization - better than nothing for sure, but it's not going to help with the relatively long exposures often required when shooting macros at F11 or F16. It also (by definition) can't deal the inevitable back-and-forward sway of the photographer that throws the picture in and out of focus, and which can be only partially alleviated using continuous autofocus (even assuming you can place an AF point at exactly the desired position). So anyone expecting a 'magic bullet' for hand-held closeups will be disappointed, and for serious work you'll still need a tripod (which shouldn't come as any surprise to experienced macro shooters). "

Personally given the choice again of purchasing the L v the Non-L, I would probably still go for the Non-L (and still have enough money over for a decent tripod and shutter release). I think optically they're very very similar, the maximum aperture is the same. Sure the L has one more iris blade but hey I can live with that.

Few things to look at:-

Digital Picture Review of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

Digital Picture Review of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L USM Macro

Flickr Pictures taken with the Non-L Canon 100mm Macro

Flickr Pictures taken with the L version Canon 100mm Macro
 
Last edited:
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is a bit cheaper and still a great lens.

The 100mm IS f/2.8L is sharper than the standard 100 f/2.8, but to be honest she'd get better use out of macro flashes instead of the IS and slight improvement in optical quality. If she needs you to recommend a lens then she doesn't need an L, to be honest.
 
Ksanti said:
If she needs you to recommend a lens then she doesn't need an L, to be honest.
Click to expand...

Actually that's pretty far from the truth, she's a better photographer than me, been doing it longer than me and has a fantastic eye for composition. She just doesn't have any interest in the gear really.

She used the non L version and liked it, would probably have bought it already if I hadn't said 'let's check there isn't a better option' so I just wanted to check whether there's any advantage to the L beyond weather sealing and IS.

Seems it's a tiny little bit sharper with nicer bokeh too is the only thing. I'm sure the non L version will be fine, it's just the knowledge the top of the line L version is only a couple of hundred quid extra.

Flash wise will probably grab a ring flash at the same time, it's a handy thing to have around anyway so makes some sense.

Thanks for the input guys!
 
I recently changed from the non-L 100mm Canon to the L version.
I have discovered that each version has it's advantages. If she is doing "ordinary" hand-held macro then she may find the IS is an enormous advantage, I certainly have.

However, in my manic quest for ever increasing levels of detail in my bug shots (compound eyes etc) I now find I only get these results using a tripod. In this case the non-IS version would be just as good.

For sheer versatility the IS version would have to be the winner, the only advantage of the non-IS version would be price. I did try the Sigma 105mm for a while but although sharp the AF is excruciatingly slow and noisy.

Whether to AF in macro work is always the subject of much discussion. To put it simply, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

Flash is an interesting one, I've put together a fairly simple rig after looking at the examples on TP. I wouldn't be without one. I don't know how strong she is but adding all this kit increases the weight, the addition of a ring flash might be the tipping point.
 
footman said:
Whether to AF in macro work is always the subject of much discussion. To put it simply, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

Flash is an interesting one, I've put together a fairly simple rig after looking at the examples on TP. I wouldn't be without one. I don't know how strong she is but adding all this kit increases the weight, the addition of a ring flash might be the tipping point.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I appreciate the real world experience.

In answer to those two - AF is somewhat important, she'll likely use it as a portrait lens and general mid range telephoto as well somewhat so at least average AF is a must have.

It's a fair point, however I can't imagine it'll be worse than a 5DII+24-70+430EX (or even the 5DII+24-70 to be honest) which she drags around a fair bit at the moment. The Canon ring flash is apparently specced at 400g, which is pretty good, though that'll exclude batteries surely.
 
I've got the non-L 100mm, I can see that IS would be nice for handheld macro shots but I get by. The AF isn't too bad for portraits but it hunts in low light where other lenses easily make focus. I'm not sure the L is any better in this regard? The bokeh is nicer on the L though. I went for the Canon over the Sigma and Tamron offerings as I got a nearly new one for a good price and I wanted to use it for general shots as well, which the other apparently struggle with due to the slower AF.

Bokeh is ok wide open:


Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

It can get quite angular but it depends what\how you're shooting I suppose:

Water Drops by jj_glos, on Flickr

Also takes tubes nicely:

Jumping Spider by jj_glos, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I've got the L version of the lens. In terms of image quality shot from a tripod, I don't think there anything to really separate the two in real world use. As above, if you're really into up close stuff, then the majority of shots will probably be tripod-based anyway. The IS is useful when hand holding or when resting the lens on something, but as the review says above, it's not a magic bullet! Forward and backwards sway aren't corrected...

If I were to buy now, would I buy the L or the non-L? The L - purely because of the increased flexibility that the IS gives.
 
bigredshark said:
Thanks! I appreciate the real world experience.

In answer to those two - AF is somewhat important, she'll likely use it as a portrait lens and general mid range telephoto as well somewhat so at least average AF is a must have.

It's a fair point, however I can't imagine it'll be worse than a 5DII+24-70+430EX (or even the 5DII+24-70 to be honest) which she drags around a fair bit at the moment. The Canon ring flash is apparently specced at 400g, which is pretty good, though that'll exclude batteries surely.
Click to expand...

The Canon MR-14EX Macro Ring Flash weighs about 540g with Batteries.

One thing to note with it. It will fit directly onto the end of the Non L series Canon 100mm Macro, but it will require an adaptor to fit on the end of the L version.

You would need the Canon 67C Macrolite Adapter which makes it possible to attach the MR-14EX or the more expensive twin flash MT-24EX macro flash to lenses with a 67mm filter thread, including the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens.

Quite why Canon do not bundle this adaptor with the above two flash guns is beyond me - though saying that if they did they wouldn't get another £35 off us would they!
 
I have the Canon EF 100mm F2.8 macro as detailed by Andy90.
The lens is just amazing to use. I would not worry about IS and most macro work will be using a tripod any way.
The biggest problem I think is light and using the right flash ! !

The canon lens is just amazing piece of kit.
The other manufactures like Tamron and Sigma which do make some cracking lens. The benefit of the canon over the others is the focusing is all done internally within the lens.
The other lens the len will extend towards your subject, not ideal when shooting insects for instance !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom