Canon 100mm Macro

[Hobbes]

I am upgrading to digital (see separate thread: Which First Digital SLR Camera?) and also upgrading to my first dedicated macro lens. I am interested in experiences with & comparisions between the Tamron 90mm macro & the Canon 100mm (Not the new Canon 100mm IS lens. That is waaay out of my budget unfortunately!).
I have found a bunch of reviews including:
Objektiv-Testbersicht
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens Review
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM vs Tamron SP Autofocus 90mm f/2.8 DI Macro Lens - photo.net

I'd be interested to hear from anyone with personal experiences of either lens. I would be shooting outdoors; mainly insects (especially butterflies) & flowers etc.

What about the Tokina AT-X 100mm Macro lens? Anyone have any experience with this lens? Cost makes it seem quite attractive for me.

I have found that many stores (Adorama, Amazon, 17th Street Photo, B&H, Hunts Photo & video in Maine) do not have the Canon lens in stock. It is not being replaced by the new IS lens is it?

[JDArt]

I had the Canon 100mm macro and sold it because I didn't use it enough. It was a fine lens, but frankly I felt it needed IS for any type of hand-holding. It's a tripod-only lens, IMO. The Tamron has a good reputation, but I have not used one. The Canon lens will probably retain its value better on the used market, so if you buy it, you won't have to worry about whether "you should have bought the Canon" or whether it will sell if you need the money back.

[andrejan]

It's not on your list but I own the Sigma AF 105/2.8 EX DG. It's not expensive, not heavy, and the sharpness of the pictures amaze me every time (But maybe I'm easily amazed).
Maybe it's also worth looking at.

Andre

[Hobbes]

I have thought about the Sigma 105. There's a nice review at: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens Review which treats it kindly. Since price is a significant issue I'll add it to my list of possibles.

[Hobbes]

I have thought about the Sigma 105. There's a nice review at: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens Review which treats it kindly. Since price is a significant issue I'll add it to my list of possibles. Some reviews say it is noticeably noisier than its competitors on AF. Is this an issue? How often do you use AF for macro work?

[swampler]

If the Canon 100 macro is anything like the Canon 60 f/2.8 macro, then it will be an excellent lens. The 60 is one of, if not the, sharpest lenses I own, including the 70-200 f/2.8L.

[greenmatter]

Originally Posted by Hobbes

I have found that many stores (Adorama, Amazon, 17th Street Photo, B&H, Hunts Photo & video in Maine) do not have the Canon lens in stock. It is not being replaced by the new IS lens is it?

I just googled "canon 100mm macro" ...amazon has it for $555 down from 790

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Hobbes

I have found that many stores (Adorama, Amazon, 17th Street Photo, B&H, Hunts Photo & video in Maine) do not have the Canon lens in stock. It is not being replaced by the new IS lens is it?

No it isn't, the 100F2.8Macro USM will remain in the lineup.

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[loeee]

I have the Canon 100 2.8 and I love it. I shoot hand-held with it all the time (and I do not have especially steady hands; quite the opposite). As long as I keep my shutter speed at 1/100 or faster I don't have any trouble. The auto-focus does tend to hunt in poor light (but I bought it used, this may not be a common fault). This is my favorite lens and it rarely leaves my camera.

[waynet]

The Canon 100 macro is the first lens I bought when I went digital. Although it is not listed as a "L" lens, it is just as good. It will also double as a fine portrait lens with a good bokeh due the wide aperature. I still have mine and will keep it as a backup, but,that said, I would recommend you look at the Sigma 150 2.8 macro as an alternative. The extra reach will allow you to get pics of shy insects and butterflies that you can't get with the 100. It also gives better backgrounds. The sharpness of this lens is amazing. As good or better than the Canon. I think the prices of the two lenses are similar, unless of course, Canon is reducing its lens due to the release of the the new IS 100 macro. The Canon will autofocus slightly better than the Sigma, but most macro nuts use manual focus, anyway. With the Sigma, you get a tripod foot and a lens hood. Neither comes with the Canon 100.

[archibaldimages]

I like and use my Canon 100 mm frequently. It is best to use the tripod, but you can use it without with trade off's in iso, etc. I've recently discovered using it in video mode on my 5d mark ii. Very cool perspective.

A link to me to discussing it.

YouTube - Canon 100MM Macro 2.8 Lense

YouTube - Canon 100MM Macro 2.8 Lense

[S_Egbert]

Originally Posted by Hobbes

I am interested in experiences with & comparisons between the Tamron 90mm macro & the Canon 100mm.

What about the Tokina AT-X 100mm Macro lens? Anyone have any experience with this lens? Cost makes it seem quite attractive for me.

Hobbes, If I remember right from when I was researching these lenses, both the Tamron and Tokina extend during focusing. The Canon has internal focusing therefore does not extend and, if I recall correctly, has a bit more working distance than the other two. These factors made me decide on the Canon. Although I don't have it yet, it will be the one I get.
All three are very close in sharpness as just about any macro lens is going to be razor sharp.
Tokina lenses are known for being very well built and was my second choice.

[andrejan]

Originally Posted by S_Egbert

Hobbes, If I remember right from when I was researching these lenses, both the Tamron and Tokina extend during focusing.

The Sigma 105 extends too during focusing.

[chappy]

I use a Canon 100 Macro for about 40% of my studio work and would highly recommend it. Very sharp, great colors - nice all around workhorse.

[cadmium]

I'm rocking the 100mm. If you are really determined to pursue hand held macro, you'll want to pick up a flash such as the 430EX, a flash bracket, extension cord, and buy or make a diffuser. That's pretty much the standard for bug hunting or nice flower macros without a tripod.

I would also consider the 60mm EF-S lens. It doesn't have the reach, but it's just as sharp and sooooo much lighter and smaller. That alone makes gives it an edge for hand held.

Remember, with a crop body, 60mm will be around 96mm equivalent (meaning it will have the same reach as a 100mm on a full frame body like the 5D). The 100mm will be equivalent to 160mm lens, making it more of a long lens.

A lot of people have great results with this lens. I had already bought my 100mm before I found out about the 60mm. Not that I regret having the 100mm, it's a great lens, but I might have gone a different route had I heard about it sooner.

Just something to think about.

[ohenry]

I have the Canon 100 f/2.8 (original) and love it. It's an extremely sharp lens for both macro and normal work. Don't second guess. Buy it.

[rob61]

I have the 100 2.8 macro from Canon, and the performance is great. Its extremely sharp, as sharp as any of my "L" lenses. Color and contrast is very good, perhaps one notch below the "L" series. It is so good that many who purchase it for macro work also use it for head and shoulder portrait work. Auto focus is remarkably fast when using the "limited" focusing range. It only makes sense that when you select the expanded focusing range (for using it in macro mode) focusing is slower as its going to have a large expanding focusing range, larger than traditional non-macro lenses. For everyday shooting, be sure to set your focusing to the limited non-macro range and you will feel very comfortable with the focusing speed.

If you want to spend about twice as much, you can soon get the new 100 "L" macro. The first test shots I've seen seem to suggest it will offer the same level of sharpness, a very slight increase in color and contrast, and of course it has the latest IS on it as well. It seems to have a little less vignetting fully open at f2.8 but today that is easily correctable in any photo editing program so I consider it a non-issue.

So far, I'm content with keeping my non-IS version. After it is more widely available, I'll determine if its really worth upgrading. Canon will still be offering the non IS version as well, so don't wait for close out prices. The current 100 non "L" series macro is an excellent lens.

[batterybaby]

I had the Canon 100mm macro .it is fantastic at first.however ,after many times using,the battery becomes short time lasting. i have to purchase another for it. now it is ok now.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by batterybaby

I had the Canon 100mm macro .it is fantastic at first.however ,after many times using,the battery becomes short time lasting. i have to purchase another for it. now it is ok now.

The 100mm Macro USM lens is not known to drain the batteries of your camera any more or faster than any other Canon lens. Any battery, after many times using, will finally become exhausted, and won't hold it's charge for a long time. The Canon BP511(a) batteries have a load-life of over 300 full recharges, and since they last 300 - 500 shots per charge, not many will deplete their battery before moving on to the next camera

So I think you are just advertising/spamming for that battery site...

...add removed, user banned ...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[PrestonSmith]

I love my Canon 100mm 2.8 macro. It is as sharp as my L lenses. If you have the switch turned to the closest focusing distance it will occasionally hunt on you.

These were all taken indoors, hand held, with the Canon 100mm Macro:

animoto - Shooting Butterflies