100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 8 9 10 11 end

Archive 2009 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #1 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

That looks very good, Bobby.
BTW, what is that thing about a different plastic material used for the barrel.....apparently Canon used a different finish texture according to Bryan of Digital Pictures Com (Now, he also seems to believe other L lenses are made of metal, which is generally not the case for black lenses save a few exceptions.)

Nov 16, 2009 at 05:19 AM

rsg_1
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #2 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

It is engineered plastic with a matte finish which is different from before, but seems sturdy enough. I think for nearly $1000 USD, people want some heft to their lenses. I recently tried the Nikkor 105VR macro and its heavier at nearly 750 g and feels good like cold hard steel. The Canon 100L IS macro is 625 g and plastic, but you can carry it around a lot longer. Oh, and image quality is better on the Canon.

Nov 16, 2009 at 05:26 AM

bobbytan
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #3 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

Thanks Peter! It's polycarbonate, a hard plastic that is usually used for camera bodies. I like the matte finish hood - as it doesn't scuff unlike the old smooth-surface hood. Love the light weight too - so much easier to hand-hold this lens than say the 180/3.5L. This lens is terrific on the 7D.

PetKal wrote:
That looks very good, Bobby.
BTW, what is that thing about a different plastic material used for the barrel.....apparently Canon used a different finish texture according to Bryan of Digital Pictures Com (Now, he also seems to believe other L lenses are made of metal, which is generally not the case for black lenses save a few exceptions.)

Nov 16, 2009 at 05:45 AM

bobbytan
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #4 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

No kidding! I just had a look at the Photozone resolution numbers and the Canon is just stunning compared to the Nikon.

rsg_1 wrote:

Oh, and image quality is better on the Canon.

Nov 16, 2009 at 06:05 AM

Antje
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.9 #5 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

n0b0 wrote:
You do most macro handheld too? That's cool and all but how often do you shoot macro though? Everyday? once a week? once a month? once a year? And what do you usually shoot? I never see you post a single photo in macro forum so I don't know your skill level in macro, I also don't know how old you are, and as such I don't know whether that problem is real or imaginary.

I shoot most of my real macro photos hand-held, too. What's the problem with that?

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Shooting handheld or on a tripod doesn't make you more or less versed in macro, does it.

Antje

Nov 16, 2009 at 08:37 AM

aladyforty
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.9 #6 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

bobbytan wrote:
I switched from the old Canon 100/2.8 to the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125 Macro, and to the new Canon 100/2.8L IS .... and cannot be happier - as this lens is really hand-holdable, even for macro. Took these test shots yesterday .... hand-held, of course.

stunning photos

Nov 16, 2009 at 09:24 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #7 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

keithreeder wrote:
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

Did you look at the title of this thread?

That's the problem: "low" score? Hardly!

Couldn't agree more. BTW, I'm going to trade my "High score" 135/2 for this "Low score" lens.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM

R. Eisenberg
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.9 #8 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

This is a very fine lens. I find that the IS adds to its versatility and helps make it enjoyable to use.

Nov 16, 2009 at 02:33 PM

bobbytan
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #9 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

I did that .... sold my 135L + 100/2.8 macro to get the CV 125 which I have since replaced with the 100/2.8L and couldn't be happier. The 100L is a lot more versatile (and therefore far more useful) than the 135L - as it can be used as a portrait, landscape, and macro lens .... and shooting without a tripod. Good decision, Yakim!

Yakim Peled wrote:

BTW, I'm going to trade my "High score" 135/2 for this "Low score" lens.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 16, 2009 at 04:57 PM

Tom K.
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #10 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

From the review:

Verdict: The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS macro is a very fine lens and a welcome new option in the market. 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. Unfortunately there's still some bokeh fringing which may spoil the game a little at f/2.8, less so at f/4. Lateral CAs are well controlled although potentially (just) visible at the borders. Technically the lens is probably really not superior to the conventional 100mm f/2.8 USM macro but it offers a slightly better build quality inc. weather sealing and obviously the new hybrid IS which is certainly more than a plus for some. The AF performance is about on par and as such vastly better than third party alternatives.

Sounds like they like it.

Nov 16, 2009 at 05:05 PM

michael49
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #11 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

bobbytan wrote:
...- as it can be used as a portrait, landscape, and macro lens .... and shooting without a tripod. Good decision, Yakim!

I currently use my cheap Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro for all of these purposes and the 100mm IS L would be a nice uprgrade. I would likely sell my 100 f/2 as well if the bokeh of the 100L is good enough.

Nov 16, 2009 at 05:24 PM

wickerprints
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.9 #12 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

I use the EF 100/2.8L macro IS on a regular basis. It is one of my favorite and most fun lenses to use, as well as one of the sharpest I have ever had the pleasure to use.

The decision to buy it was not a difficult one. Simply put, I knew I wanted a dedicated macro that doubles for portraiture (so no MP-E 65/3.5 although I covet it as well), and I wanted some kind of image stabilization, knowing full well that there would be benefits at least for handheld portrait photography if not so much for macro.

Being new to macrophotography, it quickly became apparent to me that developing proper technique would take time and patience. I see no evidence to support the notion that anyone other than those dedicated to developing such macro technique can casually achieve the kinds of results that, say, someone like LordV gets. The Hybrid IS for shooting near 1:1 is mostly beneficial to those who are already skilled macrophotographers, because their focusing technique and precision is superior.

Therefore, I conclude that the IS benefit to the 100/2.8L will be under-realized for the majority of reviewers, who generally will not possess the level of experience needed to fully utilize this feature. This is why we see stated IS benefits around only +1 EV.

Regarding sharpness, I see no issues on the 5D Mark II @ f/2.8. Chromatic aberration is highly controlled, distortion is effectively zero, and vignetting, while present, is not a serious detriment and is easily adjusted in post. Longitudinal CA is present to some degree, as in many EF lenses, but not overly apparent. Wide open it is a little soft in the corners, but no more so than most L zooms in this focal length. Moreover, corners rapidly sharpen once the lens is stopped down to f/4 with extremely sharp performance corner-to-corner at f/5.6.

In summary, I see no reason to call this lens anything less than an excellent performer. It's not an EF 300/2.8L IS, folks. It's not a $4000 lens. It's not the EF 135/2L either. I don't understand Breitling65's accusations that just because Photozone.de didn't give it a "very highly super excellent omg I'm going to cream my pants over this lens" recommendation, that it's automatically a POS and "omg I'm so glad I didn't buy this crap lens." Anyone who thinks that it's not sharp enough needs to have their head checked.

It's not a perfect lens. Nobody claims it to be, including myself. But for $1000, it is an excellent macro performer and does a fantastic job. If you would prefer the EF 100/2.8 USM, Sigma macro, reversing ring, close up lenses, or extension tubes because they're cheaper for macro work, then clearly your priorities are not aligned with the target audience for the 100/2.8L. And that's perfectly fine. But to say it's a "low-scoring" lens is absolutely false.

Nov 16, 2009 at 06:05 PM

Sir_Loin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.9 #13 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

wickerprints wrote:
I use the EF 100/2.8L macro IS on a regular basis. It is one of my favorite and most fun lenses to use, as well as one of the sharpest I have ever had the pleasure to use.

The decision to buy it was not a difficult one. Simply put, I knew I wanted a dedicated macro that doubles for portraiture (so no MP-E 65/3.5 although I covet it as well), and I wanted some kind of image stabilization, knowing full well that there would be benefits at least for handheld portrait photography if not so much for macro.

Being new to macrophotography, it quickly became apparent to me that developing proper technique would take time and patience. I see no evidence to support the notion that anyone other than those dedicated to developing such macro technique can casually achieve the kinds of results that, say, someone like LordV gets. The Hybrid IS for shooting near 1:1 is mostly beneficial to those who are already skilled macrophotographers, because their focusing technique and precision is superior.

Therefore, I conclude that the IS benefit to the 100/2.8L will be under-realized for the majority of reviewers, who generally will not possess the level of experience needed to fully utilize this feature. This is why we see stated IS benefits around only +1 EV.

Regarding sharpness, I see no issues on the 5D Mark II @ f/2.8. Chromatic aberration is highly controlled, distortion is effectively zero, and vignetting, while present, is not a serious detriment and is easily adjusted in post. Longitudinal CA is present to some degree, as in many EF lenses, but not overly apparent. Wide open it is a little soft in the corners, but no more so than most L zooms in this focal length. Moreover, corners rapidly sharpen once the lens is stopped down to f/4 with extremely sharp performance corner-to-corner at f/5.6.

In summary, I see no reason to call this lens anything less than an excellent performer. It's not an EF 300/2.8L IS, folks. It's not a $4000 lens. It's not the EF 135/2L either. I don't understand Breitling65's accusations that just because Photozone.de didn't give it a "very highly super excellent omg I'm going to cream my pants over this lens" recommendation, that it's automatically a POS and "omg I'm so glad I didn't buy this crap lens." Anyone who thinks that it's not sharp enough needs to have their head checked.

It's not a perfect lens. Nobody claims it to be, including myself. But for $1000, it is an excellent macro performer and does a fantastic job. If you would prefer the EF 100/2.8 USM, Sigma macro, reversing ring, close up lenses, or extension tubes because they're cheaper for macro work, then clearly your priorities are not aligned with the target audience for the 100/2.8L. And that's perfectly fine. But to say it's a "low-scoring" lens is absolutely false.

I also have this lens and I couldn't have put the above post any better myself. A stunning lens and worth every penny! "low scoring" my arse!

Nov 16, 2009 at 07:41 PM

n0b0
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.9 #14 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

wickerprints wrote:
... then clearly your priorities are not aligned with the target audience for the 100/2.8L.

Who exactly is the target audience? From what I see in 100/2.8IS threads, most people just want to use it as a portrait lens with the occasional macro shots which probably consist of mostly flower and still life shots that goes nowhere near 1:1.

Nov 16, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Jo Dilbeck
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #15 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

M Vers wrote:

Most people aren't macro photographers. Some are looking for a 100mm portrait lens with IS and the ability to do occasional macro work if the situation presents itself.

That would be ME! I do not do massive amounts of macro work, nor do I do a lot of portraiture. I had the original 100 F2.8 and the 135 F2 and neither one of them got enough usage to warrant having them both. I now have one lens instead of two (well, haven't actually sold the 135 yet, I'm still on the fence there), but I know the 100 can do all I need for portraiture!

Jo

Nov 16, 2009 at 11:15 PM

bobbytan
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #16 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

That would be ME too! I want a general-purpose lens that will do 1:1 macro. I shoot portraits, landscape, travel, food, books, products, and close-ups of flowers and insects. This lens will do all of that quite admirably! I cannot think of a more versatile lens than the 100L.

M Vers wrote:

Most people aren't macro photographers. Some are looking for a 100mm portrait lens with IS and the ability to do occasional macro work if the situation presents itself.

Nov 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM

M Vers
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.9 #17 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

Jo Dilbeck wrote:
M Vers wrote:

Most people aren't macro photographers. Some are looking for a 100mm portrait lens with IS and the ability to do occasional macro work if the situation presents itself.

That would be ME! I do not do massive amounts of macro work, nor do I do a lot of portraiture.

I meant to put 'tele' in place of 'portrait'--got sidetracked by "Jack the ripper in America", which was pretty good in case anyone is wondering.

Nov 16, 2009 at 11:52 PM

michael49
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #18 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

bobbytan wrote:
That would be ME too! I want a general-purpose lens that will do 1:1 macro. I shoot portraits, landscape, travel, food, books, products, and close-ups of flowers and insects. This lens will do all of that quite admirably! I cannot think of a more versatile lens than the 100L.

M Vers wrote:

Most people aren't macro photographers. Some are looking for a 100mm portrait lens with IS and the ability to do occasional macro work if the situation presents itself.

Me 4.

These are all hand-held shots that I've taken with my Sigma 105mm macro. The addition of IS, USM, FTM would all be welcome.....

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Nov 17, 2009 at 01:07 AM

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #19 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

bobbytan wrote:
I shoot portraits, landscape, travel, food, books, products, and close-ups of flowers and insects. This lens will do all of that quite admirably! I cannot think of a more versatile lens than the 100L.

You are probably right there, Bobby. Add to your list wildlife/birds, cityscape, candids, architectural elements and we've got my application scope for such a lens.

Nov 17, 2009 at 01:26 AM

nathanlake
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.9 #20 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests

M Vers wrote:
Aside from that how many samples were tested by photozone?

The PhotoZone reviews I have read are generally based on one lens that they got from someone they know. That seems to be the case here too.

Edited on Nov 17, 2009 at 01:39 AM · View previous versions

Nov 17, 2009 at 01:38 AM

1 2 3 … 8 9 10 11 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 8 9 10 11 end