EF 100 f2 or EF 100 f2.8 Macro

[fisher]

The stupid question: which one the better? I plan to shot portraits

mostly. I also would like to use this lens for concert photograpy so I

guess the f2 would be better but reading the f2.8 review I don't know

which one I should choose,

I use eos 300D.

[pictures of perfection]

i received the 100 f2.8 macro a few days ago, amazing lens but incredibly sharp so i don6t know if youd want to use it for portraits. i also use 300d and remember that with 1.6x crop a 100mm lens so 160 equivalent so its a bit long which may or may not suit your style

[robin_sibson1]

The 100/2.8USM is an excellent lens optically, but it is heavy and bulky. Unless you know you want to do macro work, you might prefer the more comfortable handling of a conventional lens, especially on a light body like the 300D. Have you thought about the 85/1.8? It is reputed to be slightly better optically than the 100/2, and may be a better focal length for portraiture. I use mine a lot on my 20D.

[corey_gardner1]

Depends on how you're going to use it. I have the macro and it is great for portraits and anything where you want to get close, such as close ups of babies hands, feet, etc. It is a beautifully sharp lens and you can get shots you can't get with any other lens. The downside is the focus is a little slow and tends to hunt a bit in low light so probably not great for concert photography. Also, when you use it for portraits and want to use manual focus, most of the focus range is reserved for macro. This means that small turns of the focus ring result in large changes in the area of focus. I use it for portraits all the time so you can work around it but it's something to think about. It is also a large, bulky lens. I added the 85 1.8 recently because of this. It boils down to whether or not you really want the macro feature. If you don't think you would use it much, get the 100 f/2.

[anthony_thornborough1]

The 100 f2.8 Macro is superb, but on occasion you wish for the xtra speed of the 85 f 1.8, which I'm re-acquiring (having given one up , very stupidly, some time ago).

If you can afford both, go for both, but if only one, then I would seriously suggest an 85 f1.8 with 12mm extension tube (just remember to take it off when you don't need it, which I didn't do on all occasions! - very frustrating working out why I couldn't focus beyond...!).

I would add I only use film (still, now) and that the 100 Macro is heavier than most people say - the extra glass. And I seldom use the true Macro. I think an 85 f 1.8 + EF 12 ET fits 90% of needs and was better!

[jltaft]

The 100 f2 is my favorite lens for portraits on film. I have an extension tube for macro, but it is probably not the same as a lens designed for macro. As an earlier poster commented, with a factor of 1.6 on your 300D, 100mm might be a bit long. The 85 f1.8 would be worth considering for portraits on 300D, or even the 50 f1.4 (or even 50 f1.8) depending on how tight you like to work.

 

Jay

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Disclaimer: I've never used either lens.</p>

 

<p>I've never done concert photography, but my impression is that lens speed is absolutely critical. For more information on concert photography, see <a href="http://www.photo.net/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i">the photo.net concert photography tutorial</a>. With your digital body, you could always crank up the ISO a notch to make up for the slower lens, but eventually you hit the highest ISO and then what do you do if it's not fast enough? And of course you'll get less noise if you shoot at a lower ISO. Either way, the 100/2 wins the concert photography battle.</p>

 

<p>The 100/2 is also supposed to be a fine portrait lens. The 100/2.8 would also do a fine job at this. There are a couple of schools of thought on whether a lens can be too sharp for portraiture; see <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/portraits/">the photo.net portraiture tutorial</a> for more info.</p>

 

<p>In your shoes, I'd get the 100/2.</p>

[gareth_harper]

Well I'm after something for concert photography.

I did try my 28-80Tokinaf2.8 for this a wee while ago. I found myself a little too far away as well as struggling for light and I was using film at 3200asa. The other thing I discovered was the Tokina is not much use at 80mm and f2.8, very soft indeed.

 

So the 100mmf2 is on my shopping list. I figure 85 will be too short and 135mm too long and requiring a reasonably fast shutter. It would be nice to have the macro but if concert photography is important go with 100mmf2, also pick up a 50mmf1.8 if you don't already have one.

[latham_portous]

I have the 100mm macro and love it, but I do enjoy the macro side of it. If you have no need for macro get the other lens. The macro lens is incredibly sharp but now with digital that should not be a problem. Since when was sharpness a disadvantage? You can always blur/soften during post processing so I cannot understand that "problem" people continuously mention.

[yakim_peled1]

You don't say you are interested in macro, in concert there is always a light problem, why go for the heavier, slower and more expensive 100/2.8? BTW, are you sure that this focal length is what you need?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.