I too really like the looks of the lens. In fact, far from being the ugliest L lens, I personally think it's one of the best looking black Ls ever made. I really like the sleek design and the curved flange. Really looks and feels elegant.
I don't believe it has to do with the IQ this lens delivers; I borrowed one and I was very impressed with the results. However, unlike other new lenses, such as the 17mm TS-E, 24mm TS-E Mark II and 24mm f/1.4 Mark II, etc. this new 100mmL Macro is readily available at plenty stores. It just strikes me as odd... Did Canon realize that the recession is over and started ramping up the production of lenses, starting with this one ?
the argument of "how many samples were tested" is to me a poor one, because these tests do reflect what most of our experiences as consumers will be. e.g., for me, i will go to a store, pick one off the shelf and purchase it. if it is sufficiently unsatisfactory, i will return it, (possibly) for another one. if that one is like the first, i will return it and be done with that model. if the first one worked as advertised, good for me and i keep it. should i go through 30 samples (which still wouldn't say much 'scientifically' considering how many of a particular lens are made) before i can have an personal opinion on a lens?
abam wrote:
the argument of "how many samples were tested" is to me a poor one...
Seriously? So what you're saying is performance should be based on a sample size of 1? If manufacturing, shipping and handling were all non-issues that could make sense...but in the real world they are all major factors. Sample variation exists, so does mishandling of products, in order to avoid it more than one sample should be tested. A test from a site like PZ should be out there as a reliable source for consumers to compare their own samples to therefor they (PZ) should do their best to minimize error.
My comment above referred to the lens being readily available while the other new lenses, including two TS-E lenses, are not. From your response it appeared that you may have misunderstood my post. No biggie though...
Jim Victory wrote:
Personal attacks really help your credibility.
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.
I haven't been frequenting the Macro forum lately but I seem to remember most (if not all) of the really good macro shooters were using 1.6X bodies. There was also a few guys getting pretty good results with the 70-200 f4L IS / tubes. Those folks mentioned the IS as a great benefit as well.
Anyhow my "eye-zone" tests with the new 100 on the 7D are extremely favorable!
rd4tile wrote:
I haven't been frequenting the Macro forum lately but I seem to remember most (if not all) of the really good macro shooters were using 1.6X bodies.
Thing is many if not most people here aren't interested in using this lens for macro. They want it as a portrait lens.
abam wrote:
the argument of "how many samples were tested" is to me a poor one, because these tests do reflect what most of our experiences as consumers will be. e.g., for me, i will go to a store, pick one off the shelf and purchase it. if it is sufficiently unsatisfactory, i will return it, (possibly) for another one. if that one is like the first, i will return it and be done with that model. if the first one worked as advertised, good for me and i keep it. should i go through 30 samples (which still wouldn't say much 'scientifically' considering how many of a particular lens are made) before i can have an personal opinion on a lens?
You just stated that photozone tests "reflect what most of our experiences will be" but then you go on to say that you return copies that don't perform well enough-- and exchange for better copies.
In other words, photozone DOES NOT replicate the buying pattern you describe, because if it did, it would return poor performing copies and retest better performing copies.
Furthermore, even if photozone's buying pattern is typical (buy one copy and just keep it), that does not in anyway mean that its tests reflect the quality a typical buyer can expect out of a given lens. Let me illustrate this with a hypothetical example: Let's say that 1 of ever 10 lenses is out of spec, and returns mediocre results. If photozone tests that single bad lens, than its reported results are accurate only for a 10% of buyers... in other words: its test results do not convey to a typical buyer what he or she should expect out of that specific lens. If, on the other hand, photozone tested 10 copies of a lens (the higher the sample size the better, but also the less realistic; a balance needs to be struck, and 1 is surely too small a sample), and posted each of the score results on a curve, buyers would have a MUCH better idea of what to expect-- and know when they'd be better off returning their copy to get a better copy (or know when to hold on to their over-spec lens if they are lucky enough to get one).
sunpole wrote:
I shoot maybe 10% macro, 100L works out great for those of us who are not hardcore macro shooters yet need a macro lens and don't want to use tubes.
If you're not a hardcore macro shooter yet, then why does it have to be the L version? The old 100 macro works just as well.
If people want to use this for non-macro use... fine. But this is a $1K, specialty lens. It's made with dedicated macro shooters in mind-- and Canon couldn't care less if some of you want to save money and use it as a portrait lens. It's not designed for that. They already sell lenses in the 85/135 range specifically optimized for portraiture... and they'd love you to buy one of those too.
I'm not saying the 100L Macro IS or the 135L can't serve multiple purposes-- in fact, I'm for saving some $$ when it is possible-- but you have to realize that these are not considered lenses competing for the same market. You don't have much to stand on if you think Canon somehow messed up because they don't offer exactly the same specs.
If you need 1:1 (or better), the 135L simply won't work for you. If you need fast focus and ultimate wide open performance, the 100L Macro IS simply won't work for you. These two lenses are optimized for different things.
The thread title is misleading as just because the 100L Macro IS gets a marginally lower score on one measure that the lens is not optimized for compared to arguably the best 135mm lens ever made on a measure the 135L is optimized for does not mean the 100 Macro IS gets "low scores." On the contrary, the 100L Macro IS looks like one of the best performing macro-optimized lenses ever made (specially when you only consider AF lenses).
NoBo-- just to be clear, my previous post is in reference to the OP, not you. I agree with your last post: if you're not a hardcore macro shooter, there's no need to get the 100L (unless you've got the money, in which case, you can buy as many lenses as you want... enjoy!). Lots of other options, from tubes, to reversing rings, to the 100 Macro non-L, to third party macros that run as cheaply as $100-$200 (decent macro lenses can be had even in brands that normally make crap lenses).
justruss wrote:
If you need 1:1 (or better), the 135L simply won't work for you. If you need fast focus and ultimate wide open performance, the 100L Macro IS simply won't work for you. These two lenses are optimized for different things.
What he says.
Macro shooters don't normally use the lens wide open. We usually try to stop down as much as possible to maximise DOF, so wide open performance means very little to us.
If you want to shoot flowers with great creamy bokeh, go buy the 85L and add tubes. I've seen some very spectacular result from this combo.
n0b0 wrote:
If you're not a hardcore macro shooter yet, then why does it have to be the L version? The old 100 macro works just as well.
Yes the old 100 macro worked just fine, but I find myself only using that lens for Macro shots and doesn't justify the 10% macro I do occationally.
With the new 4-stop IS on the new macro lens, not only enable me to do macro better, also allows me to do portraits shots under low light. I am able to achieve razor sharp image at 1/50 shutter.
Currently I am in the process of deciding to replace 135L as well. So in my situation, I maybe able to reduce my lens count by 1 and save $500 bux. But we will see how I like this for portrait in the next few weeks.
?