Breitling65 wrote:
You don't even need to check photozone.de to have tons of simmilar fun with $80 plastic-fantastic (or some other plastic things ... )
By your logic, then there would be no need to purchase the 135/2L, or the 85/1.2L II, or 200/2L IS, or 500/4L IS, or MP-E 65/3.5, or TS-E 17/4L, 70-200/2.8L IS, or ....
You seem to refuse to admit you are irrationally biased against the 100/2.8L macro IS, despite the fact that its technical performance and construction is extremely good and certainly worthy of the "L" designation. Furthermore, you arrived at your conclusion without ever having used the lens in question, instead relying on a single data point, one photozone.de review, which is not corroborated by other reviews. Finally, you appear to be conflating price and performance, when a lens should not be rated lower simply because it is perceived to be costly. By that logic, there would be no reason to buy the EF 200/2L IS, a $5000 lens which isn't 5x sharper than a $1000 lens, and certainly not 50x sharper than a $100 "fun" lens.
It is one thing to be argumentative. It is another to be argumentative without any data or experience to support your position.
wickerprints wrote:
By your logic, then there would be no need to purchase the 135/2L, or the 85/1.2L II, or 200/2L IS, or 500/4L IS, or MP-E 65/3.5, or TS-E 17/4L, 70-200/2.8L IS, or ....
You seem to refuse to admit you are irrationally biased against the 100/2.8L macro IS, despite the fact that its technical performance and construction is extremely good and certainly worthy of the "L" designation. Furthermore, you arrived at your conclusion without ever having used the lens in question, instead relying on a single data point, one photozone.de review, which is not corroborated by other reviews. Finally, you appear to be conflating price and performance, when a lens should not be rated lower simply because it is perceived to be costly. By that logic, there would be no reason to buy the EF 200/2L IS, a $5000 lens which isn't 5x sharper than a $1000 lens, and certainly not 50x sharper than a $100 "fun" lens.
It is one thing to be argumentative. It is another to be argumentative without any data or experience to support your position....Show more →
You need to read my posts (I am not sure if you even reading this words as well), I am just providing facts that been written on photozone.de. No complains on performance by me at all, I don't have it and probably will skip for another time.
Again please just read posts my friend
Whatever new 100L owners posting here or some obnoxious/never happy with anything people posting also doesn’t make any sense. You like it or not but review is not superb as many other L lenses including macro lenses and close in focal/F's on FF camera. Also, I am kind-of Ok when people are VERY happy with what they just took from store but that doesn't make technical reviews anyhow different.
Great lens remain great you like it very much or not and opposite!!!
I must stress that this post isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I have to say that basing an opinion on a lens from a single review that only classed it as "very good" in certain areas and then saying it poor or not worth buying is ridiculous! For years Photozone tended to have quirky test results on certain lenses, but it hasn't stopped me trying them for MYSELF and letting myself be the judge. People who have bought lenses and passed on their experience is far more useful and relevant if you want to find out how good or bad a lens is. A review, in my opinion, should only be used as a guide and not classed as gospel when it's out in the real what counts.
Edit: I forgot to add that everyone who has bought this lens has had nothing but praise for it, me included. It's on par with the 135L (better in some instances) and I had that as well until recently, but I bought this for it's versatility and I'm so glad I did.
Breitling65 wrote:
You need to read my posts (I am not sure if you even reading this words as well), I am just providing facts that been written on photozone.de. No complains on performance by me at all, I don't have it and probably will skip for another time.
Again please just read posts my friend
Maybe you should read your own posts. It seems like there is no magic in this glass ....
What is this "magic" you are talking about
Did you miss the good points of this "low-scoring" lens?
- The build quality is excellent but then we've expected no less from a professional grade "L class" lens. The lens body is made of very high quality plastics and a metal mount. The broad rubberized focus ring works very smooth. Similar to the non-L macro lens it features a "true" inner focusing system so the lens does not extend when focusing towards closer focus distances.
- The Canon lens feature a new "hybrid" IS which does not only compensate "conventional" shake but also angular movements. Canon claims an efficiency of 2 f-stops at 1:1 magnification and 4 f-stops at standard focus distances. However, the IS is also able to handle tripod-induced shake so it does certainly make sense in this scope.
- The AF is based on the usual ultrasonic motor (USM) which is both very fast and virtually silent. Nonetheless Canon provides a three step focus limiter in order to avoid AF hunting throughout the range which can be a problem when using AF in macro situations. During our field tests the AF accuracy was excellent. The performance in contrast AF mode (aka LiveView) was also decent(both on the 5D II and 50D).
- Distortions: Typical for most macro lenses the level of distortions is absolutely negligible and nothing to worry about.
- Lateral CAs are generally well controlled with less than 1px on the average at the image borders. At 100% magnification you may spot this but it shouldn't be a problem on prints
- The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for a macro lens and the Canon lens does truly shine here. Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far.
- 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 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.
Why don't you have a look at the reviews by actual owners of this lens?
See the number of owners that give this lens a perfect rating?
Look at the comments by the ones that give it a low rating and you will see that most of them don't have a clue of what they are talking about. e.g. Slow focusing speed relative to non macro lenses, excessive use of plastics feel cheap, rather expensive for IS and L ring.
Also another proof of needless IS for lens shorter than 200mm even with 4 stops/hybrid or whatever they called this ..
That is your opinion. Many others disagree, and Canon does not make lenses just for you.
PetKal wrote:
The old EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro is one of my best fast BIF lenses.
The enclosed image is fairly representative of what the lens can do. I have quite a few of those.....no lucky shots here.
To any of you current lens owners, if you maintain that the new L version is better, show me some of your BIF shots with it.
I have NEVER said that the 100/2.8L macro IS has superior imaging quality to the 100/2.8. In fact I cannot because I've never USED the non-L lens and so I have no basis for comparison. That is not what this discussion is about. It is about Breitling65's repeated and incorrect assertion that the 100/2.8L somehow cannot stand on its own and is not an excellent performer.
Furthermore, as I have already pointed out multiple times, his conclusion is incorrect because:
(1) he bases it off of a single photozone.de review, ignoring all the other reviews of this lens
(2) he ignores the assessments of all the people who actually own the lens and have positive impressions, but emphasizes any negative comments by owners
(3) he makes arguments that are irrelevant to the actual performance of the lens (e.g. price).
I am officially done with this thread. I believe I have made a fair and objective assessment of this lens, and that I have done my best to be considerate and accurate. There is always room for improvement and the 100/2.8L is no exception--it could be a bit sharper wide open in the corners, it could have less vignetting, and it could feel a bit sturdier, but optically there is very, very little to complain about.
So for the rest of you out there who might be dissuaded by Breitling65's opinion, I suggest you stick to the facts and not to half-baked, semi-incoherent arguments. This lens is excellent.
)
