IS and "L" weather sealing on a macro? I'm guessing many or most macro applications are on a tripod indoors or at least in fair weather outside?
I suppose the backyard bug & blossom crowd may get some use from the IS, but from a practical standpoint Canons 100mm "improvements" are mostly solutions in search of problems.
Canon is getting a lot worse at trying to separate me from my money .. in fact some of it makes me want to switch to Nikon.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Canon is getting a lot worse at trying to separate me from my money .. in fact some of it makes me want to switch to Nikon.
Ironically, the fact that Nikon did upgrade their 105 macro with VR is probably one of the reasons why Canon did add IS to the 100 macro too...
Regarding to the 100 L IS macro, I got a chance to try it out this week, at the Salon de la Photo in Paris and it looked to me like a very desirable lens; IS can be very helpful on a macro lens, when you are looking after bugs or cannot adjust the tripod to match the framing you want (happens to me all the time when I photograph flowers). I may sell my Sigma 150 to get that lens eventually.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
I'm guessing many or most macro applications are on a tripod indoors or at least in fair weather outside?
How many other animals would you see out in the rain apart from possibly ducks and frogs?
Xavier Rival wrote:
...IS can be very helpful on a macro lens, when you are looking after bugs or cannot adjust the tripod to match the framing you want (happens to me all the time when I photograph flowers). I may sell my Sigma 150 to get that lens eventually.
I'm not entirely convinced that "fringing" in the bokeh is necessarily a bad thing. I guess if it's severe, maybe. But if it adds to the smoothness of the OOF background, I don't see it as troublesome. I recall seeing a little green fringing in the bokeh on images taken by the 85/1.2L (the "bokeh master"). Perhaps it's a tradeoff to keep from exhibiting the hard edges that some lenses show when shooting wide open.
I don't know, just pontificating here. Maybe that's why Canon offers both the 100/2.8 and the 100/2.8 IS L.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I have a hard drive full of photos ruined by camera shake which is proof enough for me of the the need for IS on lenses shorter than 200mm
Me also..This lens would suit me more than fine for close portraits in low light and open shade at 2.8.Would be a real portrait workhorse with that IS..Bruce
Mirek Elsner:
I am sure photozone website did more comprehensive, more scientific and overall more trustworthy testing than I did. But I still tend to believe my own eyes.
This is exactly the attitude that fuels numerous (and lengthy) discussions on FM
OK, I am having some problems here. It seems that one person is suggesting that the lens is trash because it didn't get a "High Recommendation" tag at the end of the review from Photozone. Yet in the review, that we have been told repeatedly to read and re-read, it says,
"The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS macro is a very fine lens and a welcome new option in the market" It also says;
"The resolution is generally very high although the border quality could be a little better at large aperture settings. Typical for macro lenses distortions are a non-issue. Vignetting is only a real problem at f/2.8. The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is excellent and among the best that we've see here."
Hmm, a very fine lens, with high resolution, with about the best bokeh they have every seen? Sounds like a piece of crap to me.
The bokeh fringing can't be too bad if it is yielding "among the best that we've seen here" and well controlled lateral CAs isn't much of a problem for most macro shooters - or anyone else for that matter.
Considering how good the old 100 macro is, is it really much of a surprise that the two are close in IQ? The issue here is whether the IS is worth the cost bump over what is already an excellent lens and that is totally dependent on shooting needs and is a personal decision.
I sure wish I had had a 100 IS macro on two recent trips to the National Aquarium and a reptile zoo. In similar situations, this lens will be king and to discount it merely because Photozone didn't put a "Highly Recommended" tag on a "very fine lens" seems a bit silly.
Photozone has a long history of testing a single lens copy and drawing conclusions about lens quality from that one copy. They've had plenty of bad copies, which make certain lenses look AWFUL.
Bottom line, you CANNOT draw a conclusion on the 100/2.8L's performance based on his review. For that you'd need multiple copies of the same lens, to weed out potential bad copies. All this review tells you is that Wolfgang Scholten's 100/2.8L has corner softness wide open.
Photozone's reviews are useful, but they are not authoritative.
Quite funny to read how people seem to take personal offense against a review which just says that a very good performing new lens might also have minor/negligible drawbacks. The PZ test is a very well performed test and fully valid - of course there are sample copies out there with differences in quality. But I rather like to read a critical lens review than just a glorification of a new lens. If somebody has bought the 100 L macro lens and does not observe the mentioned negatives in the PZ review, than this is perfect! But it also might others allow to check on those observed issues more closely.
So overall there is nothing wrong or bad with a valid critical review - and there is not really something bad about the 100 L macro lens either. Problem solved
Figured I'd add my 2¢ on the IS feature, since I just bought one:
I have been hoping Canon would come out with a high quality macro lens for a while.
The IS seems to work pretty good. I was able to take a shot on a static object at 1/15th of a second, and it came out pretty good. I tend to shake a lot, so that says a lot. Anything over 1/30th of a second seems very sharp. I would normally need at least 1/125th second ot better at 100mm to be shake-free.
Just from a few test shots, the bokeh looks super smooth, best I have seen yet.
I am gonna take some real-life pix later today at the beach and see how well it works as a "walk-around" lens with added macro bonus.
retrofocus wrote:
So overall there is nothing wrong or bad with a valid critical review - and there is not really something bad about the 100 L macro lens either. Problem solved
CKrueger wrote:
Photozone has a long history of testing a single lens copy and drawing conclusions about lens quality from that one copy. They've had plenty of bad copies, which make certain lenses look AWFUL.
Bottom line, you CANNOT draw a conclusion on the 100/2.8L's performance based on his review. For that you'd need multiple copies of the same lens, to weed out potential bad copies. All this review tells you is that Wolfgang Scholten's 100/2.8L has corner softness wide open.
Photozone's reviews are useful, but they are not authoritative.
I agree with Chris in a lot aspects. However, in several cases, they did test more than just a single copy of certain lenses, if they suspect the lens performance to be off for whatever reasons. In those cases, they normally would report the results of the better performing lens. Take a look at their test on the Canon 24-70, for example.
retrofocus wrote:
Quite funny to read how people seem to take personal offense against a review which just says that a very good performing new lens might also have minor/negligible drawbacks.
If this was directed at me I'd like to inform you that I am not taking personal offense, rather calling someone out on ignoramus commentary. Nothing that was posted by the OP holds any ground rather only biased misconceptions and idiocies.
M Vers wrote:
If this was directed at me I'd like to inform you that I am not taking personal offense, rather calling someone out on ignoramus commentary. Nothing that was posted by the OP holds any ground rather only biased misconceptions and idiocies.
Ye right Almost everything you are posting on this forum brings negativity and some ignorant personality ...
All I asked is to read "Verdict" without some of your translations never exists on photozone. You don’t like it, call them and complain, not me or forum here.
David Tognazzi wrote:
Figured I'd add my 2¢ on the IS feature, since I just bought one:
I have been hoping Canon would come out with a high quality macro lens for a while.
The IS seems to work pretty good. I was able to take a shot on a static object at 1/15th of a second, and it came out pretty good. I tend to shake a lot, so that says a lot. Anything over 1/30th of a second seems very sharp. I would normally need at least 1/125th second ot better at 100mm to be shake-free.
Just from a few test shots, the bokeh looks super smooth, best I have seen yet.
I am gonna take some real-life pix later today at the beach and see how well it works as a "walk-around" lens with added macro bonus. ...Show more →
.. in fact some of it makes me want to switch to Nikon.
