wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.9 #10 · 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests | |
I use the EF 100/2.8L macro IS on a regular basis. It is one of my favorite and most fun lenses to use, as well as one of the sharpest I have ever had the pleasure to use.
The decision to buy it was not a difficult one. Simply put, I knew I wanted a dedicated macro that doubles for portraiture (so no MP-E 65/3.5 although I covet it as well), and I wanted some kind of image stabilization, knowing full well that there would be benefits at least for handheld portrait photography if not so much for macro.
Being new to macrophotography, it quickly became apparent to me that developing proper technique would take time and patience. I see no evidence to support the notion that anyone other than those dedicated to developing such macro technique can casually achieve the kinds of results that, say, someone like LordV gets. The Hybrid IS for shooting near 1:1 is mostly beneficial to those who are already skilled macrophotographers, because their focusing technique and precision is superior.
Therefore, I conclude that the IS benefit to the 100/2.8L will be under-realized for the majority of reviewers, who generally will not possess the level of experience needed to fully utilize this feature. This is why we see stated IS benefits around only +1 EV.
Regarding sharpness, I see no issues on the 5D Mark II @ f/2.8. Chromatic aberration is highly controlled, distortion is effectively zero, and vignetting, while present, is not a serious detriment and is easily adjusted in post. Longitudinal CA is present to some degree, as in many EF lenses, but not overly apparent. Wide open it is a little soft in the corners, but no more so than most L zooms in this focal length. Moreover, corners rapidly sharpen once the lens is stopped down to f/4 with extremely sharp performance corner-to-corner at f/5.6.
In summary, I see no reason to call this lens anything less than an excellent performer. It's not an EF 300/2.8L IS, folks. It's not a $4000 lens. It's not the EF 135/2L either. I don't understand Breitling65's accusations that just because Photozone.de didn't give it a "very highly super excellent omg I'm going to cream my pants over this lens" recommendation, that it's automatically a POS and "omg I'm so glad I didn't buy this crap lens." Anyone who thinks that it's not sharp enough needs to have their head checked.
It's not a perfect lens. Nobody claims it to be, including myself. But for $1000, it is an excellent macro performer and does a fantastic job. If you would prefer the EF 100/2.8 USM, Sigma macro, reversing ring, close up lenses, or extension tubes because they're cheaper for macro work, then clearly your priorities are not aligned with the target audience for the 100/2.8L. And that's perfectly fine. But to say it's a "low-scoring" lens is absolutely false.
|
they must have got a good one then!