Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

[neuroanatomist]

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]

i LOVE this lens, absolutely outstanding

 

[davinci52]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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

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)...

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

Bunny and Clyde

 

[skitron]

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]

...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]

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]

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!

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

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)...

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

Bunny and Clyde

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

 

[LOLID]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.