Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro ove...
  
 
jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


I'm intrigued by the 100 2.8L IS macro lens but I'm a total newb and it's hard for me to visualize in any tangible way the advantages that it would have over just using a prime or a zoom that covers 100 (I have the 24-105 f4 is now... the aperture difference is pretty clear to me but I'm wondering more about lens capabilities and what kind of 'new worlds' i could potentially open up by having a dedicated macro lens). I know it's a stupid question, but I'm still learning so bear with me (or just hit the back button as you shake your head at my newb-ishness ). I realize you can get closer and fill the frame better, and I've tried to do a lot of reading on it, but visual examples would be awful helpful if you have any or know of any valuable ones on a review or info site I may not have found yet.

Thanks!




Apr 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


Its macro , you can focus closer which magnifies the thing your shooting . With a proper macro lens you can get down to life size (1:1) which means that if you were to shoot something that was the same size as the 35mm sensor in a camera (I will stick to full frame for this) then it will FILL the whole frame (and look freakin huge when you have it on your 27" screen )
Now shoot the same subject with a 24-105 and the best magnification you can get to is 0:23 which is just under a quater of the frame .

Also a macro lens is designed with close focus in mind , so the optics are optimised for this . There are more than a few zooms out there that are regarded as sub par when shooting close (but brilliant at longer distances) which is a trait that would not be any use in a macro lens .



Apr 30, 2013 at 01:09 PM
macentropist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


One more huge benefit of the 100 f2.8 IS lens, is just how steller it is as a portraiture lens. I stll prefer the venerable 135mm f2, but find it a little long on occasion, the 100 is a sweet spot for me. And the IS just kills! I think it is Canon's best portrait lens made. (Ducks for cover from the 85 f1.2 crowd)


Apr 30, 2013 at 03:42 PM
nle57
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


Haha this reminds me. I once took my macro for some portraits. Female subject. The lense was so sharp on some of the pics I saw fine facial hair. And the ring she had on her fingers had pores and hairs and everything! I didn't even want to deal with that in post process. I never used my macro for close portraits again lol!


May 01, 2013 at 06:47 AM
tdodd
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


Depiction from....

100-400 at 100mm and MFD
70-200/2.8 IS at 100mm and MFD
85/1.8 at 85mm and MFD
100L IS Macro at 100mm and MFD




May 01, 2013 at 02:01 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



gwaww
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


So...... After all the endless posts debating wether a certain lens is sharp enough, now they're too sharp? Ridiculous. I have used the 100L, and I own the Sigma 150 OS macro and 135L. While they are designed for different purposes, I have taken great portraits with all 3. The biggest difference is focus speed. The range of focus on a macro is wider and usually is much slower to focus. One of the reasons a macro may appear sharper for a portrait is that the lens allows you to get closer than you maybe should for pleasing results. The 135L is one of the sharpest lenses that I have ever used and its my go to portrait lens. Most of the portraits I take are processed BEFORE I show customers and are softened slightly. It's much easier to go from sharp to soft than the other way around.


May 01, 2013 at 02:31 PM
Xavier Rival
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


Maybe the best way answer this is to check out a few threads in the Macro forum:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/45

Then, it should be fairly clear what macro lenses do that your 24-105 cannot. You will also notice that there are other ways to get there, e.g., using close-up filters, extension tubes and other tools. Then, pretty much any lens (including your 24-105) can venture in the macro world, except that some are much less adequate than others.



May 01, 2013 at 02:45 PM
lighthawk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


If you are interested in macro, try adding a 12mm tube to your 24-105 and play around. You will lose infinity focus, but can get some decent macros. I plan on buying the 100 2.8 (non-IS), but in the meanwhile I've done well with an extension tube with 70-200 or 135.


May 01, 2013 at 04:44 PM
jvphotos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Can anyone depict the advantage of the 100 2.8L Macro over a non-macro ~100mm zoom/prime?


Thanks for the replies everyone, great pics tdod!


May 01, 2013 at 11:20 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password