M Vers wrote:
If this was directed at me I'd like to inform you that I am not taking personal offense, rather calling someone out on ignoramus commentary. Nothing that was posted by the OP holds any ground rather only biased misconceptions and idiocies.
I think the OP just wanted to make a point that the new macro lens didn't receive a "thumbs up" highly recommended rating as other Canon lenses did (OP, please correct me if I am wrong). Yes, M Vers, you are right, the given score wasn't low. But this was obviously not the whole point of the OP. And Breitling65 has a point here that "maybe" the new 100 L macro lens can not easily replace other primes which was discussed here on this forum earlier. As you said, macro lenses are special lenses and might never fully be able to replace other primes anyway.
Breitling65:
Lots of people considered replacing 135L or even 85/1.8 with this lens.
Completely agree. I would never buy this lens for Macro use only but with its IS, I would consider it as a "replacement" for these two lenses. I was also comparing it with both 135 f/2.0 and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS. I try to have as few lenses as possible.
Breitling65 wrote:
To me it is LOW concidering new technology inside and L mark on lens. I didn't say fasco but I am sure lots of people will skip this lens. I did ...
Specifically, you say "low scores in PhotoZone" Please specify which scores are Low? By your logic, I assume that you would agree that since the 100 L MTF numbers are "higher" than the 135L that the 135L is a lens we should be avoid because it is even worse than the "low scoring" 100 L.
retrofocus wrote:
I think the OP just wanted to make a point that the new macro lens didn't receive a "thumbs up" highly recommended rating as other Canon lenses did (OP, please correct me if I am wrong). Yes, M Vers, you are right, the given score wasn't low. But this was obviously not the whole point of the OP. And Breitling65 has a point here that "maybe" the new 100 L macro lens can not easily replace other primes which was discussed here on this forum earlier. As you said, macro lenses are special lenses and might never fully be able to replace other primes anyway....Show more →
Hrow wrote:
Specifically, you say "low scores in PhotoZone" Please specify which scores are Low? By your logic, I assume that you would agree that since the 100 L MTF numbers are "higher" than the 135L that the 135L is a lens we should be avoid because it is even worse than the "low scoring" 100 L.
Really tired explaining this over and over, read "Verdict" and compare same text to other lenses in same range. For example 135L. Again, you or Vers don't like this call/email to photozone and complain, not me or forum.
retrofocus wrote:
I think the OP just wanted to make a point that the new macro lens didn't receive a "thumbs up" highly recommended rating as other Canon lenses did (OP, please correct me if I am wrong). Yes, M Vers, you are right, the given score wasn't low. But this was obviously not the whole point of the OP. And Breitling65 has a point here that "maybe" the new 100 L macro lens can not easily replace other primes which was discussed here on this forum earlier. As you said, macro lenses are special lenses and might never fully be able to replace other primes anyway....Show more →
Actually the lens tested very high and did receive a "Highly Recommended" status via PZ, in fact the OP initially had both links posted but edited before I replied. The point is the lens he compares it to one of canons best performing lenses ever and the fact that this lens scored lower somehow translates to "low scores" (). The OP also decided to bring up the supposed fact that it performed worse than the non-L version on FF, which cannot not be proven via PZ as there is no review for the non-L on the 5DII. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the OP and his tireless crusade against what is IS...this thread is an example of that and can be seen in the OP. Breitling65 wrote:
Also another proof of needless IS for lens shorter than 200mm even with 4 stops/hybrid or whatever they called this ...
mfurman wrote:
Completely agree. I would never buy this lens for Macro use only but with its IS, I would consider it as a "replacement" for these two lenses. I was also comparing it with both 135 f/2.0 and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS. I try to have as few lenses as possible.
Had that been what this thread was about from the get go, apart from it's title and several misinformation's provided in the OP, I could see how it would have some bearing. Fact of the matter is that wasn't what the thread was initially about.
M Vers wrote:
...there is no review for the non-L on the 5DII.
This is correct. No PZ for the "older" 100 mm macro lens on FF (I was missing the test on PZ myself).
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the OP and his tireless crusade against what is IS...this thread is an example of that and can be seen in the OP.
True - I only judged from this actual post. I didn't know that this is a longer enduring fight between both of you about IS instead.....sorry to hear this. Hopefully you can work out the differences or at least accept the other person's opinion.
retrofocus wrote:
True - I only judged from this actual post. I didn't know that this is a longer enduring fight between both of you about IS instead.....sorry to hear this. Hopefully you can work out the differences or at least accept the other person's opinion.
It's when people present their opinion as fact that they open their selves up to responses like mine. The OP is quite good at the former, again this thread a prime example, and I'm pretty decent at responding
M Vers wrote:
It's when people present their opinion as fact that they open their selves up to responses like mine. The OP is quite good at the former, again this thread a prime example, and I'm pretty decent at responding
Again for ignorant Vers - I presented photozone verdict clearly without "Highly Recommended" words there. Any arguments on this or you still ignoring this fact?
Breitling65 wrote:
Again for ignorant Vers - I presented photozone verdict clearly without "Highly Recommended" words there. Any arguments on this or you still ignoring this fact?
I agree that the title "Low scores" is incorrect on every level, and should be changed. Perhaps "lower than I expected" would be more appropriate.
I would expect the following characteristics (in this order):
Great bokeh
3 or 4 stop IS
Exceptionally sharp center
Fast focus
Great build
Above average corners
And those characteristics are exactly what I'm reading about.
The 135 f/2, currently sells for $150 MORE than 100L and doesn't have IS. Most estimates put the value of IS at a few hundred bucks, so wouldn't it be expected that it has some qualities better than the 100L?
Why persist with this discussion which clearly doesn't bear any fruit.....why not agree to disagree and let it go. This is an internet forum, no more, no less.
PetKal wrote:
Why persist with this discussion which clearly doesn't bear any fruit.....why not agree to disagree and let it go. This is an internet forum, no more, no less.
Well, Peter, since you asked...It's raining here in NY, very poor weather indeed, and TBH I've had my fruit for the day--a bowl of basic 4 with a sliced banana incorporated throughout, which is quite delicious in case you're wondering
Breitling65 wrote:
I already responded to you ignorant kid, that is 1.6 crop camera review which I don't own and no plans to get one
That is one I care:
So just because you don't like or use a 1.6x camera then any test using that setup is invalid. I prefer using a crop camera for macro work even though I have a FF available.
My personal experience with this lens flys in the face of the photozone review even using a FF camera. Much better in all respects to three copies of the non-IS 100mm macro I have owned. Much sharper wide open and the build and AF speed are better too.
Oh and the IS is great but I suspect you would disagree given your preferences.
Jim
Oct 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Breitling65 wrote:
Lower than close competitors, I am sure lens capable making macros. Lots of people considered replacing 135L or even 85/1.8 with this lens.
The competitors are of course other macro lenses. Not the 135L or 85/1,8
Lars Johnsson wrote:
The competitors are of course other macro lenses. Not the 135L or 85/1,8
We are seem looping over same problems in this post:
- Some people planning to keep one lens in this range not 3.
- Some people using macro lenses for any other reasons.
- Some people shooting macro without IS with excellent results.
- Lens clearly got not perfect review on FF camera which is popular format this days.
And
- Some people don't like anything negative about their own lenses or Canon itself.
- Some people prefer to argue and/or attack in any posts they don't like instead ignore it.
I am sure Lars you are great photographer and having great knowledge of equipment but one of the items above is yours Sorry
but I am sure lots of people will skip this lens. I did ... 
). The OP also decided to bring up the supposed fact that it performed worse than the non-L version on FF, which cannot not be proven via PZ as there is no review for the non-L on the 5DII. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the OP and his tireless crusade against what is IS...this thread is an example of that and can be seen in the OP.