# Canon 100mm f/2 EF USM vs 100mm Macro



## hit0sawa (Dec 15, 2010)

Iam aiming for my first prime len for portrait and considering between these two:

Canon 100mm f/2 EF USM Canon 100mm f/2

Canon 100mm Macro             Canon 100mm Macro

I wonder what are the differences between these two lenses?
What would be the better choice for portrait?
(Iam using Canon T1i)
Is there any other suggestions you can give (like other great portrait lens)?

Thanks a lot


----------



## Formatted (Dec 16, 2010)

I've got a Macro 100 f/2.8 and I love it. Portraits, macro or sports use it for anything. The autofocus is fantastic!


----------



## Derrel (Dec 16, 2010)

I think the 100mm f/2 would focus faster, more-accurately, and more-reliably at portrait distances than the 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. I own the 100/2.8 USM macro...I've used it for a few portrait shoots...its focusing is super hair-trigger at the 6-40 foot distance range...macro lenses typically have long, gradual focusing throws at close distances, and then beyond about 1 meter, the focusing becomes absolutely CRITICALLY fast...which can cause focusing difficulties in lower light or or lower-contrast subjects, and when repeatability of focus point is important. The 100 f/2.8 USM's focusing speed is somewhat slow, compared with other, non-macro-type, prime telephoto lenses. Not that the 100/2.8 is "slow", but somewhat slow, compared to other tools that are designed for uses other than macro shooting. At times, it can have difficulty focusing too. That makes its AF behavior pretty similar to other macro lenses.


----------



## usayit (Dec 16, 2010)

If portraiture, I'd get the 100mm f/2.  The 100mm f/2.8 macro is a great dual purpose lens but I think the 100mm f/2 is better overall outside of macro.   

Actually.. I'd rather take a third option; 85mm f/1.8.


----------

