At the end of the day, the mark of a photographer is someone who knows how to use what they've got, not someone who is constantly waiting for the next advancement. The 100/2.8L is a fantastic lens. If you need someone to tell you what it's good for, I suggest there are better ways for you to improve your photography besides looking at lens reviews and complaining it's not sharp enough.
I think (IMHO) that the operative words here are: "a fantastic lens" - I bought it because I think it is and so far it is...
bobbytan wrote:
I did that .... sold my 135L + 100/2.8 macro to get the CV 125 which I have since replaced with the 100/2.8L and couldn't be happier. The 100L is a lot more versatile (and therefore far more useful) than the 135L - as it can be used as a portrait, landscape, and macro lens .... and shooting without a tripod. Good decision, Yakim!
This site also finds the 100mm HIS Macro lens to be incredibly sharp on FF camera, in agreement with DPReview's findings and directly contradicting Photozone's results:
"To start with, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens is sharp wide open - right into the corners. By f/4, full frame users will see the 2-stops of corner vignetting disappear and all will see even slightly sharper results. At f/5.6, full frame body shooters will see another very slight improvement in the corner of the frame."
Well, after using this lens now for several weeks, my opinion of it has only increased. This might be the finest lens I've ever used. The resolution is so blisteringly high that it almost has me looking disappointed with my 70-200 f/4L IS shots (which, anyone who owns this lens knows, is prime sharp). Almost. (Can't really complain about how good that lens is either).
Add to that the color, contrast, bokeh, fast AF, versatility and IS, and it's hard to beat.
Was planning on purchasing the 5dii kit (with 24-105) for gp/travel/family shots...but I'm pretty sure I'd like to purchase this versatile 100/2.8.
would it behoove me to go 5dii and 24-70 + 100/2.8 or stick with the kit + 100/2.8
I don't care about reviews. I prefer to test lens myself and everything I've shot with the new 100is the quality is excellent. Sharp, good bokeh and If you like IS it works very well.
sfrtk wrote:
Was planning on purchasing the 5dii kit (with 24-105) for gp/travel/family shots...but I'm pretty sure I'd like to purchase this versatile 100/2.8.
would it behoove me to go 5dii and 24-70 + 100/2.8 or stick with the kit + 100/2.8
So you're basically asking whether to get the 24-70/2.8L or the 24-105/4L IS...which has nothing to do with whether you should buy the 100/2.8L macro IS.
To be clear, the fact that the 24-105/4L IS is able to shoot at the same (nominal) focal length as the 100/2.8L macro IS doesn't really matter. In fact, it doesn't matter at all, because the two lenses (both of which I have) are so completely different. One is an f/4 zoom, the other is a f/2.8 macro prime.
So let's talk about the real comparison here, which is between the 24-70 and the 24-105. The most obvious difference is the f/2.8 versus f/4 aperture. The 24-70 allows in twice as much light. On the 5D2 the most important benefit is the added center point AF sensitivity that an f/2.8 lens enables. The other benefit is the obvious 1-stop light advantage, which in my opinion is not as important because the 5D2 has excellent ISO performance but relatively lackluster AF performance.
The second difference is focal length range. There isn't a whole lot to speak of here, especially if you intend on buying the 100/2.8L macro IS, which will help make up for the shorter telephoto end of the 24-70.
The third difference is image stabilization. The 24-70 lacks IS, the 24-105 has it. And it works very well. This further nullifies the 1-stop aperture advantage of the 24-70, though for fast action in low light, the 24-70 will be much more effective both in terms of AF performance and freezing motion. But the 5D2 was not designed as a "fast action body."
The fourth difference is weight and build. The 24-70 is significantly heavier and bulkier. Most owners don't seem to care much, though. It also employs an interesting zoom design, in which the focal length is reversed with respect to barrel extension (24mm = barrel fully extended, 70mm = barrel fully retracted). This permits a superior lens hood design that shades well throughout the focal length range, unlike the 24-105 in which the hood works best at 24mm and is less effective at 105mm.
The fifth difference is image quality and distortion. I leave it for last because each has its strong and weak points, and overall I think it's mostly a wash, with perhaps the 24-70 edging out the 24-105 slightly. I don't think it should be much of a consideration here.
There may be other minor differences but they are not, in my view, significant enough to warrant basing a purchasing decision off them.
sfrtk wrote:
Was planning on purchasing the 5dii kit (with 24-105) for gp/travel/family shots...but I'm pretty sure I'd like to purchase this versatile 100/2.8.
would it behoove me to go 5dii and 24-70 + 100/2.8 or stick with the kit + 100/2.8
On a non-photographic note, if you think you'd ever want the 24-105, get the kit. The deal is fantastic - you get the lens for 30% off in the kit.
For example at B&H the 5D is $2700 + the lens by itself is $1200 = $3900 while the kit is only $3500, or a savings of $400 on the lens (if you count the savings against the lens alone).
Well after reading 8 pages, all I can say is the OP does not know what he is talking about, and those that don't think IS is an asset on a macro lens for a lot of people, don't know what they are talking about.
Dang, all you have to do is LOOK at the images on this thread made with the lens...shoot more, read less and use your eyeballs instead. This is my next lens no question...it does many things right. I used a 180 for portrait work a lot, but this new one is replacing it. Thanks to those posting photos on this thread...that is what I look for, it is reality. And I like what I see.
Man I am amazed of your shooting abilities 