^^^ I wasn't referring to the AF speed at all in my 95% comment. I haven't read that there is any appreciable difference in AF speed between the old USM and the new L. I was making the point that if you are going to MF a macro lens (and likely have it on some sort of a rail and/or tripod), IS isn't going to help and as such, 95% of the benefit from the new lens is gone. I'm sure there are going to be 100% macro shooters that can benefit from the IS. However, I would wager that the majority don't.
jdben622 wrote:
^^^ I wasn't referring to the AF speed at all in my 95% comment. I haven't read that there is any appreciable difference in AF speed between the old USM and the new L. I was making the point that if you are going to MF a macro lens (and likely have it on some sort of a rail and/or tripod), IS isn't going to help and as such, 95% of the benefit from the new lens is gone. I'm sure there are going to be 100% macro shooters that can benefit from the IS. However, I would wager that the majority don't....Show more →
I guess I was confused by this statement: jdben622 wrote:
If ALL you wanted to do is shoot macro, you probably MF, so 95% of the new lens's benefit is gone.
Anyhow, what I don't think you understand is many, I'd go as far as to say most, macro shooters shoot handheld, including myself and most of the macro forum members.
AbramG wrote:
Ok I think we get it. If you guys need to discuss this further how about PM?
No need to be private...everyone's civil here.
I didn't realize most shooters in the macro forum shot handheld. Whenever I've complained there about the overall difficulty shooting true macro I'm always told the tiny apertures required and their corresponding shutter speeds made a tripod a necessity. If that's not the case, some of my points are moot.
I'm not a macro shooter, so my assumptions are always up for correction.
jdben622 wrote:
I didn't realize most shooters in the macro forum shot handheld. Whenever I've complained there about the overall difficulty shooting true macro I'm always told the tiny apertures required and their corresponding shutter speeds made a tripod a necessity. If that's not the case, some of my points are moot.
I'm not a macro shooter, so my assumptions are always up for correction.
It's OK...that seems to be a common misconception If you're shooting static subjects with natural lighting you may want to shoot on a tripod, or at least monopod/bean pole. However, if you are shooting animate subjects you will likely want to utilize a flash to stop action. Obviously this is just a rule of thumb. Getting back to IS...it is useful not only for slower shutter speeds but also for steadying the VF, the former being more attractive to me.
Aren't almost all of Canon's lenses being made in batches now? I see them going out of stock for a few weeks - with prices rising, and then a new batch seems to come in, it settles back again.
I think it's pretty common for them to produce this lens for a month or so, and then stop manufacturing it for like two months, only to restart it again after. Wouldn't be to worried about it being discontinued soon - if the only reason for that assumption is a stop of manufacturing it.
reno.peterson wrote:
For those who don't have one and want one, I hope this is just a poorly started rumor(Otherwise, try to pick one up now, before the end has passes) I was lucky and picked one of these up in a "bundle" deal, and after all said and done I think the net cost is near $200-$250.00. It's a great lens, and I have no intentions yet to step up the it's "Red Carpet" younger cousin.
I'll help you out and give you $260 for it
Just think of all you can do with that 10-60$. I'm a Giver.
makes sense to me for canon to disc. the old 100/2.8.
The two has virtually the same optical quality, L with additional IS feature.
I see no reason to keep two production lines of the same lens just to attract a small spectrum of a small population of macro shooters. The new one is clearly very similiar to the older version but suprior.
M Vers wrote:
It's not a rare lens so I doubt you would have trouble locating it in the future if it were to become discontinued. Aside from that there are plenty other choices out there.
Yeah .. that's true. But, I had one copy which I loved, but I sold it for no particular reason, to lighten my gear bag. And immediately got seller's remorse and bought another one soon after. And since getting the Canon 500D, I haven't been using the 100 macro much. But, when I sell it, I'll probably get remorse again, especially if it might be discontinued. But, you're right .. it's always for sale on FM. Wonderful lens though ...
M Vers wrote:
TBH I wasn't sure if Canon would end up discontinuing this lens or not but according to CR it looks like they have. It hasn't been officially announced but it sounds probable.
I think this is quite possible. Canon might want to increase sales for more expensive items - one way to do it is to get rid of the in-house competitor of the 100 f2.8 IS L macro lens. In case this happens, surely we will see higher prices for used 100 mm macro EF lenses soon after.
Personally I will stick to my 100 f2.8 macro EF lens.
TweakMDS wrote:
Aren't almost all of Canon's lenses being made in batches now? I see them going out of stock for a few weeks - with prices rising, and then a new batch seems to come in, it settles back again.
I think it's pretty common for them to produce this lens for a month or so, and then stop manufacturing it for like two months, only to restart it again after. Wouldn't be to worried about it being discontinued soon - if the only reason for that assumption is a stop of manufacturing it.
retrofocus wrote:
I think this is quite possible. Canon might want to increase sales for more expensive items - one way to do it is to get rid of the in-house competitor of the 100 f2.8 IS L macro lens.
My thoughts exactly. The only thing keeping me from believing entirely that they will is what they have done with the 70-200 series.
That theory only works if there's no 3rd party competitors but that's not the case here. Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105mm macro both have a great reputation and they're considerably cheaper than Canon non IS 100mm macro. What do you think people are going to buy if they don't want to spend the money on the 100L and the 100 non-IS is discontinued ?
n0b0 wrote:
That theory only works if there's no 3rd party competitors but that's not the case here. Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105mm macro both have a great reputation and they're considerably cheaper than Canon non IS 100mm macro.
That's not true at all. As I noted earlier in the thread Nikon has done it with the 105.
M Vers wrote:
That's not true at all. As I noted earlier in the thread Nikon has done it with the 105.
Well maybe Nikon simply can't support the production of both lenses with their much smaller DSLR market share. Or maybe that kind of decision simply shows why Canon is the more successful company.
