# Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro



## chammer (Apr 19, 2010)

Arrived Saturday morning...








...and I have to say it's probably one of my best purchases to date. Bloody amazing lens, and super sharp from 2.8.

Here's a sample shot, and a 100% crop from the focal point:












I can't speak for the non-L version of this lens, as it was on my list, but when it came time to buy (thanks to tax return) I figured why not go all the way. If you don't have the regular version (or what IS), or don't own a macro lens yet at all...save your pennies for this one. It is so well beyond what I could have imagined, and so well worth the money!

Here's a few more sample shots:






















...and as I had heard it makes a good portrait lens I gave it a try really quickly:












I very much look forward to getting some really decent macro shots as I get time, and I also look forward to doing more formal portraits with it sometime over the next couple nights, but im pretty sure my 50mm 1.8 just got retired from portrait duty once and for all. Really curious to see how it's going to compare to the 70-200mm 2.8 IS for portrait work.


----------



## JasonLambert (Apr 19, 2010)

Wow... Nice! Wouldn't mind having the grand to drop on that lens! Looking forward to more shots!


----------



## j-digg (Apr 19, 2010)

Oh man, I was in the same boat, really wanting a macro lens and going with this one over the older model.. it wasnt pocket change for me but it wasnt a huge stretch either.. and man Im glad I got it. Havent really got to use it as much as Id like to yet! :x I cant wait to give it a shot as a portrait lens for my sister and her fiances engagement. Went ahead and followed a waterdrop tutorial on here and got the following as a result:






Not too bad for a first attempt.


----------



## chammer (Apr 19, 2010)

j-digg: very nice shot! that drop is almost a perfect sphere, and very sharp! i've still yet do to the water drop thing.  

i was in the same boat financially, even prepared to drop even more money and grab the 24-70 2.8L...or yet even money and get a 1d mark III lol. i decided, however, this would be my best purchase since i really wanted a macro to play with, and i really wanted a better portrait lens to replace my 50 1.8. from what i read this would do both since i have enough room to use 100mm in my house. it's ok though...for the price of the 24-70L i have this one, and i'm going to pickup the tamron 28-75 2.8 in place of the 24-70L in the next day or two (still debating the idea of it in my noggin). two for one! 

i just got back inside from playing with it some more, and will be loading a few more images here in a few!


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 19, 2010)

Congrats! That last picture is great! :thumbup:


----------



## chammer (Apr 20, 2010)

thanks, josh!

as promised, here's a few more i snapped off this evening...

another flower:






another flower (closer):






yet another flower:






yet another flower (100% crop center stuff):






yet another flower (100% crop flower petal):






nail:






nail (100% crop):






baseball1:






baseball2:






baseball3:






baseball3 (100% crop):






all of these were handheld, and the nail shot was at 1/30th at iso 800! i am *very* impressed with the detail still able to be obtained. there's still plenty of room for improvement on my end as well, so im not even close to doing this lens justice.


----------



## sinjans (Apr 20, 2010)

You bastard...Just added another to the wishlist, which means i will probably be in the hole even longer. Great shots


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 20, 2010)

Congrats on the purchase!  New glass, specially when its high quality glass, makes a nice difference.

I had the same debate a while ago about the Tamron 28-75 over the Canon 24-70.  I have to say that I am very pleased having gone with the Tamron.  When you get it, make sure to do some sharpness tests to ensure you got a good copy, but once that is clear, you are good to go.

My main issue with the lens is the slightly slower focusing speed.  Its usually not a huge deal, but not a lens to be used for fast action (although I have and got decent results).  Its slightly long on the wide end at 28, but I have a 10-22 for the wider shots.

Its not built as tough as the 24-70, so that might be a factor in your decision making, it was not for me.  I've shot with the lens in slight rain, was my main lens in Australia a month ago, and I have no complaints.

And this was shooting with it on an XSI.  A friend has one and now shoots with the 5D MkII and still loves the Tamron.


----------



## chammer (Apr 20, 2010)

bigtwinky: thanks for the input. weather sealing (at this point) isnt a huge item on my list. for the first time i shot under a light drizzle on saturday with the 70-200, but only because i was being paid. had i not then i wouldnt have just packed up lol.

the build toughness also isnt much of a concern. i have the tamron 17-50 2.8, and its built plenty good. besides...i dont intend on playing handball with it, or dropping it for that matter, so i should be ok. 

im aware that a few copies here and there have had slight focusing issues. im prepared for that issue if it arises. 

on the wide end, 28mm is plenty wide for what my intended use for it is which is shooting the dog show events. i love my 17-50 and have been using that most of the time, only shooting with the 70-200 here and there as space permits, but i find myself at 50mm with most all of my shots and still wanting just a touch more.

honestly the 24-105 would be the perfect lens for this, but i simply cant do f/4 no matter how much i'd love to. indoor events im lucky to get 1/40th @ iso 1600 in some places. not even close enough to stop the action of a dogs trot. 

since im not getting paid for these events i think the tamron is going to have to be it for now, but again from what i hear, i dont think its one of those things where im settling for a lesser lens. its my understanding that the tamron is every bit as good (and better in some cases) than the canon. thats saying a lot, especially for a lens costing 1/3rd of the canon.

either way, i have until may 1st to decide and have a lens here as thats the day of our first show. so just over a week now! 


sinjans: lol! tell me about it. my wish list gets longer every day (and with every purchase), and my hole keeps getting deeper. i dont believe there's no end in sight sadly...


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 20, 2010)

Sorry if I missed it, but are you shooting this on a cropped sensor or full-frame? 

The second group of pictures is good as well. I think the side-lit baseball is the best. You have a knack for profile shots :thumbup:


----------



## chammer (Apr 20, 2010)

Josh220: it's on a 50D which is a 1.6 crop body, and thank you, i do like profile and 3/4 shots mostly. 

still having a problem getting the shots i want, however. i've been too lazy to bring out the tripod, and by time i get home light is so crappy that at f4-f8 im having to use iso400 to iso1600 to get a decent hand held shutter speed which im sure is hindering the quality a bit.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2010)

Looks like you added a really good,solid piece of gear to your kit chammer. A 100-105mm macro lens is a very nice piece of equipment to have,and it should last you easily ten years, or more. That Tamron 28-75/2.8 has earned a huge,huge reputation as a highly desirable lens in terms of optical performance and price/performance ratio and also weight/performance ratio; the lens is so doggone good that both Sony, and Pentax, have licensed the lens design to be built with their own brand-specific rubber and ring styles. There are not many 3rd party lenses that are so well-made that two other camera makers have both struck deals to have the lens made and labeled as "their own"...that says volumes about the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8's capabilities and reputation.


----------



## chammer (Apr 20, 2010)

derrel: thats what i had been gathering from my research as well. i put it off last year when the price was only $370 and i have been kicking myself ever since. i havent seen it under $450 since then. i own the 17-50 2.8 from tamron (as im sure you know since i tout it a lot). i have had it since mid-summer of last year and i am still constantly impressed by the images it produces. it's my understanding the at 28-75 is just as good if not better.

its funny, however, that last year we were chatting about the 50 1.8 and i really couldnt see what you were saying at the time. after spending a year with the 17-50, and almost a year with the 70-200 the 50 1.8 got less and less use as i became more and more aware of the quality of the images each lens was producing. the 50 1.8 doesnt see any use these days because of it, and because of that im starting to expect more from my lens's and want to now think about purchasing only the very best. it's for that reason, while hearing so many great things about the tamron...and my gut even saying its a good choice, that i cant help but think i will some how regret not buying canon's 24-70 2.8.

does that make me a snob? lol


----------



## chammer (Apr 24, 2010)

Ok, so I promised some proper portraits to go along with the macro. Tonight I gathered up the lights, and a sheet, and did some super quick work to see how it'd go.

As per the others these are all straight out of the camera (minus crop/resize, and +0.5 EC). These were also shot in RAW.

In the event it matters: Key light was set at 1/2 power just off to the left of the camera from almost straight on from 4ft away, and fill was at 1/16th on subjects left about 2ft away. Both were shot through a 36" umbrella, and all were shot at 1/200th @ f/8 ISO 100:











Crop:






























Crop:






For a quick shoot I am *extremely* pleased. In fact, these are probably the best portraits I have done to date from a pure image quality standpoint. Scary to think how great they could look with a proper background and a few props! I'm not totally sure how close to the focal point the bubble I cropped from #2 is, but the detail and sharpness of it blows me away!


----------



## j-digg (Apr 27, 2010)

Are those English Bulldogs? I wanted one of those but _they_ were a bit out of my price range hah... for the cost of an Eng. Bulldog from a good breeder around I couldve bought 2 macro L lenses


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 27, 2010)

chammer, your photography has made some serious progress since I first saw it here.

If it wasn't for the bedsheet, the dog shots would be very, very nice. It does remind me of your pet photo idea of once upon a time. Rather than another lens, shouldn't you be investing in a little studio gear and start getting paid? After all, the pet industry rakes in the $. It is often said people spend more on their pets than on their kids  Why not grab a chunk of that?


----------



## chammer (Apr 27, 2010)

j-digg said:


> Are those English Bulldogs? I wanted one of those but _they_ were a bit out of my price range hah... for the cost of an Eng. Bulldog from a good breeder around I couldve bought 2 macro L lenses



Haha! Yeah, these little guys are going for a little bit of change. These guys more so than the last group due to who their father is. 




c.cloudwalker said:


> chammer, your photography has made some serious progress since I first saw it here.



Much thanks, c.cloudwalker! I see it too...sometimes, but then I have a bad day and it makes me feel like I just picked up a camera for the first time again. 



c.cloudwalker said:


> If it wasn't for the bedsheet, the dog shots would be very, very nice. It does remind me of your pet photo idea of once upon a time. Rather than another lens, shouldn't you be investing in a little studio gear and start getting paid? After all, the pet industry rakes in the $. It is often said people spend more on their pets than on their kids  Why not grab a chunk of that?



Awww c'mon...the bedsheet is my trademark, right?! :lmao: It's funny though...a background stand and some seamless were *supposed* to be my next purchases yet I ended up with this...go figure. I'd love to have a pair of B800's and some CyberSyncs (or PW's), but it seems to never get there. There's always something else more important. Right now, for instance, I'm trying to find a 5D Mark I for the low light capability for indoor doggy shows. I don't happen to recall the pet photo idea, however.  The only idea I recall, and still want to do, is the park bench one... 

These puppies are the only "studio" type shots I ever get, and it's only like 10%. The other 90% is outdoors getting candids or at shows both indoors and outdoors. Hard to justify setting up studio stuff for such a small part for right now. Not to mention 3 of them are going to their new homes starting Thursday, so won't have much left to shoot with studio gear until at least next year.

I get what you're saying, however, and I very much appreciate it. It comes off as quite the compliment.  Though I just don't feel I am quite ready just yet with either my skill or my gear (I think the full frame 5D would compliment this type of shooting very well also), and as much as I've tried to get her friends to let me practice on their dogs as well...only 1 has taken me up on the offer (and even tipped me $40!). I'll get there though...perhaps later this year or so...but yea, it's definitely on my mind. I'm not much of a people person so pets do fit 100%. :thumbup:


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 27, 2010)

I thought you had talked of doing pet portraits... Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong person. It's called getting old


----------



## chammer (Apr 27, 2010)

Eh...I probably have since it is something I'd like to do. No worries!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 27, 2010)

A guy on here late last week was asking $1300 for a 5D with the battery grip, and just over 6,000 actuations...that's low miles...I do not know the seller, just pointing out what seems like a good deal for a low-use 5D + battery grip.


----------



## chammer (Apr 27, 2010)

Derrel: Yea, that seems to be what I am finding now too which, sadly, is just outside of my budget. I could stretch to $1200 if it was absolutely pristine, but I was looking more around the $1000 mark. I've passed on a couple very nice ones around $1150 simply because I wasn't 100% on them.

Frankly, while I think its the correct route to go based on our other discussion, my heart is still set on a 1d3 and I'm not sure I would be happy with anything but that. Looking at side by side comparisons from a 5D2, 1D3, and a 7D which compared image quality between the 3...it was seeing the crop factor side by side which drew my attention. The 1.3 crop didn't seem as noticeable as the 1.6 crop which makes me think the 70-200 would be just as viable on that as it would on the 5D, and the 1D3 also seems to get rave reviews on its high ISO capability. However, the 1D3 is simply in another price range and would have to wait even longer for that if I didn't sell the 50D first...which I am very seriously considering since after the May 29th show I'd have a few weeks break in which I could use to get the 50D sold, and find a 1D3 I'd be happy with.

Another option I'm toying with is to do away with the notion of getting a used body, and selling both the 50D and my Tamron 17-50 2.8 (which I sadly can't use on a full frame body) and picking up a new 5D2. The only major concern is that I do like to shoot action, and would like to have a body capable of that. I know the 5D/5D2 can do it...but just not as well.

I did have a chance to go back and check 3200 on my 50D, and I think I could make it work if I spent some time with the images in post, but there is some obvious banding in the top 1/3rd of the image which causes me some concern.

However it turns out I'm sticking to my guns and making sure I don't rush anything. For once I'm being patient, and letting things fall how they will.


----------



## dom yo (Apr 27, 2010)

maaaaaaaan that is a sweet sweet lens


----------



## mwcfarms (Apr 27, 2010)

Screw the lens I want a puppy. love the shots of the babies. Another lens that is somewhere in my distant future. Great closeups all around.


----------

