Canon 100mm Macro

[RossCampbell]

Hey Everyone.

I am going to be buying a canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens soon. And i am learning as much as I can about it before I get it. I have Googled it. I know the minimum focusing distance, working space, ect. But I would like to know if anyone has experience with this lens.
Is there anything I should know about it that can help me get better pictures.
Also, Is it the right lens for me to get nice close ups of insects ect. Or would I need more magnification?

Appreciate Reply's

Ross Campbell

 

[Overread]

Hi again

One question are you referring to the original Canon 100mm macro or the newer L version of the lens?

Secondly have you any examples of the kind of macro photos you take now - as I mentioned in the other thread the only other macro lens that can go greater than 1:1 is the Canon MPE, but its specialist and not one I recommend people to start with.

Note one method you can use is to take a photo with your current setup at the greatest magnification you generally use - if you take the photo of a ruler running parallel to the lens you can count how many millimetres you have along the frame on the ruler. Then you can compared that to the size of the sensor (21.9mm long) to get an idea of how magnified an image you are getting.

 

[swiftparkour94]

I'd take a look at Sigmas 105mm first which has OS and HSM. I think 100mm+ is plenty considering I shoot macro with a reversed lens lol. It's whatever is important to you though

 

[RossCampbell]

I am looking at the non-L version. As a student, the 100mm L and MP-E 65 are a little out of my budget .
I think the magnification of the 18-55mm at 18mm is 5:1. which is 5x more than the 100mm. I think to get anywhere near the same results I'd need to reverse it on a 2xTC + Extention tubes and Close Up filters on the back end haha . I will check tomorrow exactly what the magnification of the 18-55mm is.

 

[swiftparkour94]

Alright, don't forget about the crop factor though. Times the focal length by 1.6, I think you may find it plenty enough

 

[RossCampbell]

Alright, don't forget about the crop factor though. Times the focal length by 1.6, I think you may find it plenty enough

Oooh I completely forgot about adding the crop factor into the equation! Thanks for reminding me!
So I'd basically have a 160mm. Does the 1.6 crop do anything to the magnification?

Thanks for the reply

 

[Overread]

Alright, don't forget about the crop factor though. Times the focal length by 1.6, I think you may find it plenty enough

Oooh I completely forgot about adding the crop factor into the equation! Thanks for reminding me!
So I'd basically have a 160mm. Does the 1.6 crop do anything to the magnification?

Thanks for the reply

Yes and No.

Magnification is the relationship between the size of the reflected image on the sensor and the size of the sensor itself. However since 1:1 is effectively where 1mm = 1mm the actual magnification does not in any way change. However what does change is the frame capture. The crop sensors (compared to a 35mm film or fullframe camera) will capture less of the frame that is produced, as such it will appear to have a greater magnification if you were to print a photo taken with both cameras at the same physical print size.

The other changes are that crop sensor will generally net you a bit more depth of field (around one stops worth of aperture) however they also tend to have an earlier onset of softening as a result of diffraction. So whilst you gain a stops worth of depth of field, you can't stop down quite as far without losing sharpness so it evens out.


However all that is moot if you don't have a fullframe camera to compare to. The idea that a crop sensor gives you a 160mm instead of a 100mm lens only works if you've the prior experiences of fullframe/35mm to draw from. Otherwise its a meaningless comparison.

 

[swiftparkour94]

Oooh I completely forgot about adding the crop factor into the equation! Thanks for reminding me!
So I'd basically have a 160mm. Does the 1.6 crop do anything to the magnification?

Thanks for the reply

Your welcome!

 

[CanonJim]

I've had the Canon 100mm lens for about four years - it's sharper than all get out when used correctly, and is quite good, especially as a 'first' macro lens. The L version doesn't really add much except IS, and for most macro work, you'll be on a tripod so the IS is a non-issue, AFAIK.

You can probably pick up a nice used model from KEH or off eBay for around $350 or so. I've seen literally NO bad reviews or comments about this lens.

 

[Surfwooder]

Hi, I have the EF 100mm 2.8L IS version. So far I've used the lens in both modes. It makes a great portrait lens, and excellent macro lens. Using it as a portrait lens, the portrait is like looking at the actual person, you can see every wrinkle, fuzz, and pore on their face. You don't have to be right on top of the subject either. In macro, this lens can't be beat. It is sharp and clear as a bell, shows all the detail, and can be hand held. Since we don't have any bugs out this Winter, I've had a hard time doing bugs, but this lens can be hand held, and placed inside a bush, without scaring a bug off.

 

[Tony S]

Get one, you will be happy with it.........

Here is a shot I took with mine several years ago, these little moss like things are only 1 inch tall. If I could have gotten a tripod up on the roof where these grow on a corner of the chimney I would have shot at a smaller aperture.