100mm 2.8 macro USM or 100mm 2.0 ??

[martijn_verkaik]

In a few weeks, me and my girlfriend will get a puppy dog. Since we

don�t have children we think of this dog as our first child and as

all parents we want to take as much pictures as possible.

I own a manual focus camera with various lenses ( 100 2.8 and 50

1.8) but I find that manual focus means less successful pictures so

I decided to buy a new Canon Eos 7n. Lens choice is more difficult,

budget is limited, and so I need some advice to make the right

decision.

I narrowed the choices down to 100mm 2.8 macro USM or 100mm 2.0 and

maybe a 28-105 zoom or something.

For swallow DOF I prefer the fixed focal lenses andI think the macro

is more suitable, since it�s minimum focusing distance is not

limited to 0,95m as the 100 2.0 ,so I can take full frame pictures

also when it�s still a puppy. Since a dog never sits still I need to

know whether the AF of the macro USM is fast enough to follow the

movements.

Thanks for the input.

[citizensmith]

Both a very fast focusing, and top quality lenses. The f/2 is obviously slightly faster. The two places you'll see this are slightly better low light ability, and a better ability to speparate a subject from its background. The f/2.8 has the advantage of Macro, and a slightly better corner to corner sharpness. It's also more expensive.

 

Things is the differences for the most part are small. The f/2 is very sharp, the f/2.8 just a touch sharper. The f/2.8 is fast, the f/2 is just a bit faster. Not really a lot in it aside from price and macro ability. I own an f/2 and have been very happy with it.

 

You definitely want to get the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 though as a 100 on its own is a little limited, and as consumer zooms go the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is one of the best. Just make sure to avoid the cheaper f/4.5-5.6 version.

[aljaz_.]

Yeah, zoom for something that runs around perpetually. The 28-105 (the classical usm version with 3.5-4.5 f) is really good and should be a serious option. As for macro vs non-macro I think if it is only to make your puppy fit into the frame the non-macro version will manage that. It is meant to accomodate headshots and the puppy will be larger than a kid's head very soon. Later it will enable those nice shots where only the dog's eyes or its nose are in focus, because of its shallow DOF. Macro desires slowly moving objects and may be a bit of an overkill for your needs.

 

Congrats on your first baby, btw. It seems common in Holland to try it out with a pet (at least in A'dam).

[gaius1]

Also consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. That would almost give you all you wanted in the one lens including the ability to focus at 30 cms. I'm pretty happy with mine, once I got over the noise (it's loud compared to a Canon USM lens) but when I have it on the EOS 3 noise isn't really a factor!

[peng_kit_wong]

First of all congratulations to your first comming baby!!

 

There are advantages and disadvantages for each lense but one vote to the macro lense!!! It is a wonderful, very sharp with good contrast lense. But since you will be taking photos of your new baby puppy ( a moving subject), it will be an diasdvantage as it's focusing is a bit slower compared to the non-macro f2 lense. Well both are USM so it is quiet and fast focusing lense compared to non USM.

 

But I think you will not regret getting the macro lense, as it is a good portrait lens too. Moreover it could focus 0.31m-. This means you can take nice close-ups of you puppu. Another disadvantage is that it is a bit bulky and more pricey than the f2.

 

BTW I prime lense user, i don't fancy much zoom lenses.

[greg_tan]

I bought the 100 2.0 lens after comparing the two. The macro is painful when focusing. I repeat PAINFUL. If the subject moves at all, the macro will go from close focus to infinity and back which takes over a second EVERYTIME. The 100 2.0 does not hunt. I lock on my little girl or my two dogs and there are no problems. For stills the macro is great. For everything else, get the 100 2.0.

[patricks]

macro all the way. it allows you to create some really nice tight shots of your puppy (congrats!) and anything else and spures creativity in general.

[taner]

Here is my first "kidog":

 

<p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/junta-backyard-2a.jpg"></p>

 

Taken with EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 @ 28mm, f/5.6 TMY pushed one stop.

 

I would like to point out that this lens is USELESS wide open (for enlargements that is), and it is a really bad choice for those 'out of focus background' portraits (background blur @ f/4.5???)

 

If I were you I would stick with the 100/2, and also give up on 'perfectly still - close focus' shots if you are getting anything other than a bulldog.

 

May I kindly suggest that you also focus upon obedience schooling...

[martijn_verkaik]

Thanks a lot for all your answers from which I learn I�m not the only one doubting whether the Macro would be more suitable for the job than the 100mm 2.0 ;-). Anyway I have learned a lot from all your comment and will definitely help me to make my choice.

Nice picture of your dog, I guess it�s a Jack Russell? Understand the zoom lens is way to slow for nice portraits. Funny thing is that our dog will be a bulldog, a French bulldog to be precise! We plan to show our dog also so we�ll take him to training courses for this. Hopefully this will teach him to sit still.

[omar_torres]

I have the macro version and it's excellent. I love it because I'm not restricted on how close I want to get. To the poster of the focusing problem, the macro lens has an AF limiter switch which is what fixes that issue. Remember that its focusing range is huge, so whenever you're not using the Macro range, you just limit it to the regular focusing range (.49m ~ infinity) so that it only uses the normal range. It's quite fast and I haven't experienced losing focus when tracking my Siberian Husky when he runs around. This is with an Elan7E using Eye Focusing.

[jamiew]

The macro does not focus quite as fast as the 100 f2, it's one stop slower than the 2.0, and a bigger lens. My advice ....

 

Get the 100 2.8 macro. Why do I say that with all the negetives. Sinply because the macro is much more versitile, and can do things that 2.0 can NEVER do, plus it can do 90%+ of the things the 2.0 can do. In addition to the action shots think of that full frame picture of the pup's eye, or his claws and teeth.

 

That's my view...

[yakim_peled1]

For a "one lens to do it all", the 100/2.8 macro USM is hard to beat. For a strict portrait lens I find the 85/1.8 perfect for me. I had a Tokina 100/2.8 macro and found that 100mm is a bit long for me indoors (outdoors I always wished for more so I got the 200/2.8). Faster aperture also played in handy sometimes. Naturally, YMMV.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.