 |
|
|
juberisk2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 380
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $469.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
high contrast, great color, crazy sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
occasional AF hunting (more so in macro mode)
|
|
|
My first macro lens, so it took me a while to get decent shots. when i finally figured it out (~4 months), i realized the potential of this fantastic lens (another way of saying my bad shots with this lens were all my fault). It's definitely "L" sharp as others have mentioned. I also like that the 2.8 is actually usable (very good sharpness and contrast), which is particularly good to know for portrait use. as i recall from my own testing, my 85/1.8 was only the slightest bit sharper stopped down to 2.8 v. this lens wide open at 2.8....not bad. The filter size is 58mm, consistent with other non-L primes, like the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, so filter sharing is possible. the hood, which i believe i purchased separately, is fairly significant in size, and while i only use hoods about 1/2 of the time that i shoot, i use it 100% of the time with this lens, as the front element really protrudes - a risky proposition when one is getting so close to a subject. overall, the lens has a nice feel, and i consider it a very good value. highly recommended.
|
|
 Jun 4, 2006
|
|
rtrigg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 248
|
|
Review Date: May 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive, very sharp, fast silent focus, very usable for portraits also.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not much, it would be nice if it were smaller and went to f2.0 (yeah, contradicting desires).
|
|
|
This is a great value and a great lens. It's extremely sharp, focuses very fast, and doubles as a very good portrait lens (with excellent bokeh). A much better choice than the Canon 50mm macro (I haven't tried the competing brands). There's no way to go wrong buying this lens, just get it.
The 65mm MPE is even better (for macro), but that lens is very hard to use and can only be used for macro work (doesn't focus beyond about 5 inches).
The build quality is very good, but not up to the standard of the Canon L lenses. Should be among the first 5 lenses you buy.
Roger
|
|
|
May 15, 2006
|
|
Burger_BMX
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2003
Location: Argentina
Posts: 2329
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp! Even at 2.8; Focusing ring is excelente, mostly because of the size; Great for portraits and macro work; Colors provided are awesome!; Almost no CA wide opened as compared to the 100mm f2.
|
|
Cons:
|
No hood included; AF tends to hunt a lot in low light situations
|
|
The lens is amazing, I think the best lens I own at the moment. I use it all the time for all purposes: Macro, Still life, portraits, sports... Works great in all.
The fact that the hood is not included never bothered me much, I never got flare in normal situations as I did get with the 100mm f2 USM I owned before this one, I constantly had that problem.
Its incredibly sharp, it always amazes me when shooting, specially macro and portraits.
When shooting BMX with the 100mm f2, it bothered me the amount of CA (Chromatic aberration) I was getting, which is not a problem at all in this lens, even wide opened.
Here are some samples with this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/burger_bmx/image/58614634
http://www.pbase.com/burger_bmx/image/59065073
http://www.pbase.com/burger_bmx/image/59029144
|
|
|
May 5, 2006
|
|
stuffnstuff
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 40
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Vibrant colors, long focal length, close minimum focusing distance, f/stop, autofocus override, and outstanding bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
Subject to motion blur more than what seems normal.
|
|
|
I love this lens for the colors and bokeh. I am a big macro fan, so being able to make a 10 inch print of a single grain of rice at full photo quality is just amazing. I find myself more subject to available-light issues than with other lenses and am always battling motion blur. Crazy as it sounds, I wish they released a stabilized version even though it is only 100mm. I was considering the competition because of price, but I was able to snag this for less than the competition anyways, and it is a far better lens. Again, bokeh, colors.
|
|
|
May 5, 2006
|
|
HomeBrew
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome sharp images fresh out of the camera. This thing really shines with the canon ring flash. Great for insects, flowers and any macro work.
It works pretty good as a portrait lens too.
|
|
Cons:
|
Horrible AF speed. Hunts like crazy in low light. No lens hood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2006
|
|
warmtone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Vey Sharp, Good manual focus, generally high build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Surprisingly loud autofocus
|
|
|
Performs extremely well optically but the autofocus is a bit rough and surprisingly noisy when focussing. I thought ring USM was suppposed to be "near sient"
In my opinion no better than the some of my cheaper Canon lenses. Definitely not in the superquiet "L" autofocus class.
Overall a great lens let down by noisy autofocus
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2006
|
|
warmtone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
No issue with the established excellent optical performance of this near legendry lens. seems to work extemely well on both Canon digital and film bodies (20D/1V).
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly disappointed with the USM which is not like the truly silent autofocus mechanism of the L lens
|
|
|
Probably the best canon lens I currently own but found the autofocus a bit "rough" sounding. Abit like the cheaper EF lenses even though this fairly expensive bottle comes with the USM logo.
I am puzzled that no one else has picked this up??
Build quality is generally high with no real complaints and optical performance truly exceptional - even wide open.
Overall highly recommended
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2006
|
|
Aberdeen Photo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3812
|
|
Review Date: Mar 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great image quality and fun with macro.
|
|
Cons:
|
Is it possible to be too sharp?
|
|
|
Funn little lens, great color, nice BG and FG blur for portraits, but could there be a lens that is too sharp. When I use for portraits am spending too much time in PS softening the face. Excellent color saturation and just a fun little lens to play with in both macro and portraits. Have used on my 20D with 1.4 tele for an effective 2 and a quarter ( actually 224mm) with solid to outstanding results. This one is fun to have in your bag.
|
|
|
Mar 9, 2006
|
|
ollram
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 21, 2004
Location: Estonia
Posts: 921
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, sharp, Canon
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
VG lens for its price, mostly i use for macro photography
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2006
|
|
recordproducti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 176
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent punchy images, good contrast, versatile and superbly sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood is extra but well worth getting.
|
|
|
Yes, I can confirm after extensive real world use on my 5D, this is an excellent lens. It is super sharp and produces punchy and well saturated detailed images.
I could write loads but there's no point, it's just a great lens and although it's not cheap it's well worth getting.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2006
|
|
Rigardt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 15, 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Reasonable build, sharp across the board, very little flare
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocus
|
|
|
I believe that I have a pretty weird copy of this lense. As a portrait and medium telephoto lense this one is razor sharp. Macro sharpness is acceptable. I also use the Sigma 150 and the Canon is not quite at the same level here as the Sigma in the macro department. Having said that, it does not imply that the Canon is bad.
It's medium telephoto capability and portrait results is stunning. It realy is the wrong way around and I wanted to return it, but it fits in very nicely in my kit setup so decided to keep this wrong-way-around macro.
Auto focus at distances less than 1m is not good and it hunts more often than not. Also in low contrast situations. Can be frustrating, but not the end of the world picking it up manualy. end result is what counts and I have no intended action work for it, so that does not matter to much. One thing that I find pleasantly surprising is how little flare I have picked up with the lense. In testing and fooling around with it I have battled to get it to flare. Same conditions as some of my other lenses would have readily flared without intent.
In short, I have and awesome portrait lense with so-so macro capability. I have rated it well as the macro side is not bad, just thought it would be better. I like my wrong way around copy and turns out to be pretty handy!
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2006
|
|
bbudman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 617
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $575.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp Beautiful Images, Solid and Well Built
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens Hood and Case Are Options
|
|
|
This is my new favorite lens without question! Images taken with this lens amaze me. The pictures are sharp with beautiful color and contrast. Built quality is good, maybe not "L" standards, but good none the less. Picture quality is on par with both of my "L" lenses! The autofocus is fast and very accurate but as others have said it does hunt a bit in lower light.
My only complaints with this lens is the fact that a lens hood is an option! At $600 retail Canon should include a lens hood and a soft case! Also thank god a tripod ring is not necessary because that would set you back another $135 which is insane!
Overall, I love this lens! I only wish Canon would include a hood and case instead of selling them as options.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2006
|
|
f_o_t_o
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $470.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
macro sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
portriate sharpness
|
|
|
After reading all the reviews claiming it's sharpness, I didn't investigate much further--I just bought it. After taking 300 or so shots and comparing with my 20-135 (yea you read right), the sharpness of the prime was less than the zoom. My comparison were by taking shots under exact conditions and camera settings, and cropping to see captured details. In all cases, the prime was not as sharp--I bought a second one thinking I had a bad apple--the second one was the same. I'm taking basic shots around the house--no studio grade or advanced setups.
Based on my tests, I don't consider this a portrait-grade lens, but the macro capabilities are a different story. Perhaps that's the clarity people are referring to. I would have to say I'm quite impressed with the sharpness and level of detail the lens captures. Rusty nails, rain drops on leaves, I even saw the reflection of my tripod in the back of a shiny bug.
Knowing what I know now, i would defiantly buy this lens again, but to set some expectations, I don't see the sharpness in portrait shots. But in combination with macro results (like what the lens is designed for) and a very well built lens, might be why people consider this near L-grade glass.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2006
|
|
MocMoc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $520.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Very sharp at Macro distances. The ultimate lens for this kind of work.
|
|
Cons:
|
No hood, sharpness when used for portraits
|
|
|
I use this lens for about six months now for macro and product shooting. Working distances < 1 meter. Results are stunning and i'm more than satisfied.
On the other hand, a 100mm with a very small DOF, fixed focal length and the quality glass sould be perfect for portrait shooting as well.
However, till today i'm not able to get the sharpness i would like to see in my portraits (I always want the eyes razorsharp). Tried every setup, studio flash, hotlights, 550EX flash, daylight and almost all possible combinations on AV and TV settings. I still haven't figured it out yet, but i'll keep trying and won't give up...
Bottom line is, bought this lens for macros and this lens perfect for it.
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2006
|
|
TKW54
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 19
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extemely sharp Macros. Well built lens. Quality rivals L glass
|
|
Cons:
|
Hunts a bit in low light
|
|
|
As fine a macro lens I have used with regard to sharpness and color. Though it does tend to hunt in low light, it does find its mark. I am extremely impressed. This lens rivals some of its L cousins for picture quality. Not L quality build but certainly substantial. A bargain priced lens in my opinion.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2006
|
|
dave chilvers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1620
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A great Macro lens that is as good when used as a tele.
|
|
Cons:
|
Sometimes Hunts
|
|
|
What a shame that this lens falls in between my 85 and 135 because it is a real stellar performer as a macro and as a mid tele lens. Build quality although very good is not quite on par with L but and mine does hunt a bit at times when really close in. It doesn`t detract from what is a real 100% winner as far as image quality is concerned and at the end of the day that is the all important thing. There are quite a few macro lenses around and as far as I can see they are all general good performers so I suppose the way is open to your own choice but I can only advise on the Canon version and there are no bad surprises waiting for you. It has a really good deep hood that really keeps the stray light away. I bet if I took this lens out on location and left behind my 85 and 135 I would be blown away by the results! in fact I might just try that:-)
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
206
|
459464
|
Apr 16, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
95% of reviewers
|
$470.83
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.12
|
9.24
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
