Some people don't like anything negative about their own lenses or Canon itself.
I don't know if this is reaction to my post, but none of my Canon lenses are flawless and this 100L is no exception. But if I don't like it, I can send it back or sell it and wait until Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar becomes available later this year. I don't suffer from post-purchase rationalization, really.
I was just trying to share my own experience, so that people can look at their photozone results interperetations from different angle.
Mirek Elsner wrote:
I don't know if this is reaction to my post, but none of my Canon lenses are flawless and this 100L is no exception. But if I don't like it, I can send it back or sell it and wait until Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar becomes available later this year. I don't suffer from post-purchase rationalization, really.
I was just trying to share my own experience, so that people can look at their photozone results interperetations from different angle.
Breitling65 wrote:
...To me it is LOW concidering new technology inside and L mark on lens. I didn't say fiasco but I am sure lots of people will skip this lens. I did ...
Sort of agree.
I'd like IS, but I'm not willing to pay $700 more than my Sigma 105 for it.
I'd much rather have in-body IS than pay another $700 for this lens.
Why is the new version considered so much of a cost premium over the old? The IS version is nowhere near "twice" the price of non-IS version. Current B&H price is $639.95 for the non-IS and $1049 for the IS version. That's $410 more, which even though this lens uses the latest IS technology, is the SMALLEST IS upgrade cost of ANY new Canon lens sold today. Granted, you can buy used versions of the non-IS at a lower price, but that's not what many are talking about, and the IS version hasn't been out long enough for inexpensive used copies to emerge.
The 70-200/4L IS is $1319 and the non-IS version is $639. That's almost $700 and actually is 2x the cost.
jdben622 wrote:
The IS version is nowhere near "twice" the price of non-IS version.
That's a matter of opinion. Is the 70-200/2.8 IS isn't worth the $600 price difference over the non-IS version? A lot of people think so--the very same applies to the 100 macros.
This is the first opportunity that I've had a chance to read this thread and the original review.
I saw absolutely no red flags raised by the original review. Macro lenses are usually evaluated a bit tougher than standard lenses, and this was no exception here. I sold my old Canon 100mm F2.8 macro and upgraded to this lens primarily for the IS. I feel this is a VERY important feature, both for standard and macro shooting. Either you're going to "get the shot," or you're not. I wasn't looking for a sharper macro, because I don't think there are many sharper than the Canon original.
In my own testing, my copy of the new 100mm F2.8L macro absolutely destroyed my extremely sharp 400mm F5.6L at all apertures, and also every other L-series lens which I own. I was also able to get a full four stops of IS in standard shooting, and nearly that at 1:1. Therefore, I'm extremely happy with my copy, and have no worries whatsoever.
If you're considering a worthy upgrade from your old 100mm F2.8 macro (which is a great lens in its own right), move forward without hesitation here.
cameron12x wrote:
This is the first opportunity that I've had a chance to read this thread and the original review.
I saw absolutely no red flags raised by the original review. Macro lenses are usually evaluated a bit tougher than standard lenses, and this was no exception here. I sold my old Canon 100mm F2.8 macro and upgraded to this lens primarily for the IS. I feel this is a VERY important feature, both for standard and macro shooting. Either you're going to "get the shot," or you're not. I wasn't looking for a sharper macro, because I don't think there are many sharper than the Canon original.
In my own testing, my copy of the new 100mm F2.8L macro absolutely destroyed my extremely sharp 400mm F5.6L at all apertures, and also every other L-series lens which I own. I was also able to get a full four stops of IS in standard shooting, and nearly that at 1:1. Therefore, I'm extremely happy with my copy, and have no worries whatsoever.
If you're considering a worthy upgrade from your old 100mm F2.8 macro (which is a great lens in its own right), move forward without hesitation here....Show more →
cameron12x wrote:
Yes, with my 1Ds. Also with my 7D crop camera.
I am sure it is in general good lens but I have doubts it is as good on FF body as on 1.6 crop wide open. Could you provide 100% crops, preferably corners?
Breitling65 wrote:
I am sure it is in general good lens but I have doubts it is as good on FF body as on 1.6 crop wide open. Could you provide 100% crops, preferably corners?
I'm away from my home computer until tomorrow night. The objective testing was done on my 1Ds.
You do realize, of course, that no lens is as good in the corners on a FF as it is on a crop camera, right?
Just a question, do you know how to read MTF charts, and how they do the measurements from the center of the lens outwards?
I am sure it is in general good lens but I have doubts it is as good on FF body as on 1.6 crop wide open. Could you provide 100% crops, preferably corners?
If you are interested in my FF samples from 5D2 in the meanwhile, you can find them on http://www.elsners.org/wordpress/?p=93. This is second time I linked this to FM, I hope it is not against the forum rules. But the pictures are too big to copy and paste here.
I just picked up this lens, and let me assure you, performance wide open is not weak by ANY definition of the word. It is absolutely razor sharp wide open. To give you an idea of my lens experience, I own currently the 70-200 f/4L IS and 17-40L, the Sigma 150 macro and the Canon 100 f/2, and I have owned in the past the 35L, 85L, 135L, 200 f/2.8L and 80-200 f/2.8L. I own and have owned VERY sharp lenses. The 100L is easily as sharp as the sharpest lenses I have ever used. At f/2.8 it's at least as good, and likely a smidge better than my 100 f/2 at f/2.8, and the 100 f/2 is a very sharp lens (I found it nearly the equal of the 135L).
Very nice bokeh, good color and contrast and surprisingly fast AF.
Now, I've only owned it for a day, and I have not learned all its quirks, but the IS is wonderful (good 4 stops), and very good even at macro distances (1/25s is pretty good for close to 1:1). No complaints.
I replaced a Tamron 90 with the 100 IS. It's got better IQ then the Tamron, much faster AF and I find I can use it at times where I would have used my twinlite because of the IS.
Someone mentioned looks, I actually like it's design and while it won't break your toe if dropped it's more substantial then I expected given all the comments I had read about it.
rd4tile wrote:
I replaced a Tamron 90 with the 100 IS. It's got better IQ then the Tamron, much faster AF and I find I can use it at times where I would have used my twinlite because of the IS.
Someone mentioned looks, I actually like it's design and while it won't break your toe if dropped it's more substantial then I expected given all the comments I had read about it.
Funny I did the same thing. Replaced my 90 Tamron with the Canon 100 IS. I have also owned the Canon 100 non-IS as well as Tamron's, Sigma's, and Canon's 180.
The 100 IS fits my need perfectly for a macro and regular mid tele. Mine is very sharp @f/2.8 compared to other f/2.8 lenses I own or owned.
