M Vers wrote:
Oh, I could have sworn you compared it to the 100/2.8...
Give it a rest...
Again, are you having problems understanding photozone review and verdicts? I am not their employee, contact them and ask and argue. Tell them about your need of "electronic tripod" and how good IS for you and why they didn't do Highly Recommended word for it.
M Vers wrote:
Do you understand what you are saying or didn't you read the review? The lens scored high with an exception of performance wide open, which is negligible from a macro standpoint.
Not quite true. There are some situations in macro shooting where a wide open aperture is needed. I took a lot of flower blossom shots at f2.8 and faster (with 50 f1.4 and extension tube) just to keep the center of the blossom sharp and let it blur outside on the petals. So yes, the photozone test is not fully out of specs here.
retrofocus wrote:
Not quite true. There are some situations in macro shooting where a wide open aperture is needed. I took a lot of flower blossom shots at f2.8 and faster (with 50 f1.4 and extension tube) just to keep the center of the blossom sharp and let it blur outside on the petals. So yes, the photozone test is not fully out of specs here.
Generally speaking performance wide open for a macro lens is the least of most macro shooters worries. If extreme shallow DOF is what you are after buy a standard prime and a set of tubes--If you plan to shoot at f/2.8 more than not buy the 100/2. It is all about buying the right gear for the right application. Some lenses are more versatile, while other lenses are more specialized. While macro lenses can and do serve multiple purposes they are considered to be specialized. Either way, at the end of the day, the lens was determined to be very good and is considered "Highly Recommended" how that translates to "low scores" is beyond me. Now whether or not it is worth the additional cost over the 100/2.8 non-L is up to the user.
M Vers wrote:
Generally speaking performance wide open for a macro lens is the least of most macro shooters worries. If extreme shallow DOF is what you are after buy a standard prime and a set of tubes--If you plan to shoot at f/2.8 more than not buy the 100/2. It is all about buying the right gear for the right application. Some lenses are more versatile, while other lenses are more specialized. While macro lenses can and do serve multiple purposes they are considered to be specialized. Either way, at the end of the day, the lens was determined to be very good and is considered "Highly Recommended" how that translates to "low scores" is beyond me. Now whether or not it is worth the additional cost over the 100/2.8 non-L is up to the user....Show more →
very good and is considered "Highly Recommended" --> Interesting translation without actual words there ...
Oct 17, 2009 at 04:32 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
The "verdict" in the lens review was very good or good in everything. Optical quality, mechanical quality, price and performance. How can that be a low score
Lars Johnsson wrote:
The "verdict" in the lens review was very good or good in everything. Optical quality, mechanical quality, price and performance. How can that be a low score
Lower than 135L which is Highly Recommended on FF, everyone expecting better than this from new lens. Also it was lots of talks about getting it as 135L replacement which is absurd to me
Oct 17, 2009 at 05:05 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Breitling65 wrote:
Lower than 135L which is Highly Recommended on FF, everyone expecting better than this from new lens. Also it was lots of talks about getting it as 135L replacement which is absurd to me
So if a lens get a lower score than the 135L, it's a bad lens And why compare to a very different non macro lens
I don't know if this has been said, but for Macro, if you are focusing on something at shallow DOF, no one cares how sharp the corners are. In fact, at shallow DOF it's hard to get the plane of focus in the corners for any reason, unless you are either very far away from the object or shooting a very flat subject (aka brick wall)
This lens sounds wonderful. I don't expect edge-to-edge sharpness at 2.8 even in a macro lens, and LOCA or color fringing at wide apertures can likely be automatically corrected in DPP (using the 'Color Blur' lens correction). This comment along with the IS, indicates this lens may be ideal for dual-use use as a macro/portrait lens:
"The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is excellent and among the best that we've see here."
retrofocus wrote:
..Not quite true. There are some situations in macro shooting where a wide open aperture is needed. I took a lot of flower blossom shots at f2.8 and faster (with 50 f1.4 and extension tube) just to keep the center of the blossom sharp and let it blur outside on the petals. So yes, the photozone test is not fully out of specs here.
Agreed.
I have a Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro and I use it wide open all the time.
I use it wide open for a variety of purposes, including portraits. Am I the only person who uses macro lenses for something other than macro?
But honestly the samples at f/2.8 in the photozone review look fine to me.
I'd love the IS of this lens, but its not worth the price to me at this point. My Sigma cost me under $300 and is 98% of the Canon 100 macro. To spend another $700 for IS? I don't think so.
PetKal wrote:
If I was into hand-held macro photography I could probably justify the acquisition of the new lens for IS alone.
Meh, I shoot all my macros handheld and so do many other macro shooters here and elsewhere. Natural light or not, we're doing just fine without any IS. Very few people will have a real reason for needing IS for macro, the rest only want it as a shortcut. That's fine too, just don't pretend it's anything but...
n0b0 wrote:
Meh, I shoot all my macros handheld and so do many other macro shooters here and elsewhere. Natural light or not, we're doing just fine without any IS. Very few people will have a real reason for needing IS for macro, the rest only want it as a shortcut. That's fine too, just don't pretend it's anything but...
"Meh".....what does that mean ?
Well, N0b0, all I know is that I am having a great difficulty stabilizing the lens/camera sufficiently when I am attempting to do macro shots like this (in natural light). Granted, IS will not help with the wobble (coaxially with the lens) but should help with shakes in other directions/planes.
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. I compared this lens with my 85L and 135L and while the 135 seems a bit better, the differences are only at the edges and not significant. The macro lens seems to be about as sharp as my 85/1.2. There is some easily removable CA in the corners at 2.8, but I would be hard pressed to recommend 135 and 85 and not the 100L.
Besides, it is hard to compare 100L and 135L and ignore the IS, because the IQ will be only better with the 135L if there is enough light to shoot at least at 1/200 or so.
IMO it's sick to try to compare both 100 Macro reviews just because on APS-C test you are using only the sweet spot... I'd love to see numbers on FF + old 100 Macro.
LoCA is normal in any non-APO lens, so this should be a non-issue for most.
Corner sharp is important to macro lenses, however. I felt sad when I saw those ratings on corners and extreme corners, but where's the comparison base??
Photozone is so DPR
