EF 100mm F2.8 USM

[scotshot]

I have heard great things about this macro lens. Those who have one or

have used it, how good is it realy. Your opinion about using this lens

also as a portrait lens would be welcome. Thanks, Jim

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Many of the comments on the reviews of the older non-USM 100/2.8 deal with this lens, and it's been discussed a gazillion times in the forum; can you be more specific about what aspects of this lens you're interested in which <em>aren't</em> covered by previous discussions?</p>

[preston_merchant]

It's a superb portrait lens. I shoot actors' headshots with it in New York. It's ideal for that.

[hugh_crawford1]

I notice in Mike Johnston's Lens Bokeh Ratings

that he rates the 100mm ?/2.8 Macro lenses differently.

 

The Canon EF 100mm ?/2.8 Macro (non-USM) rates a 10 whereas the later USM version rates a 7

 

There aren't many lenses on the list and the two are right next to each other so it is obvious that it is not an accident.

 

What are the differences between the USM and non USM versions other than the focusing motor?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The two lenses are completely different designs; have a look at the block diagrams (the Canon Camera Museum at www.canon.com should have block diagrams for both lenses). In addition to what you can see from the block diagrams, the new one uses internal focusing; the old one focuses using its (deeply recessed) front element.</p>

[john_jovic]

I use the 100/2.8 USM regularly for portraits, normally at f2.8 where it is already razor sharp.

 

JJ

[digitmstr]

I have just bought mine (about a month ago or so) and it's incredible. Right up there with the 135 f/2L in terms of color, contrast and resolution. Of course, it is a MACRO lens so, it has other advantages as well.

 

*Contrary* to many reports (by users who have no clue) the lens does NOT hunt for focus. It is NOT meant to be a sports lens, it is meant for very precise focusing therefore, it has a longer travel. That is why it has a focus-limiter setting. The lens focuses quickly and precisely. People who complain about it either have a defective sample or have no clue of how a MACRO lens is supposed to work. Sorry about the semi-rant but, after reading countless posts about its focusing "problems" it needed to be said.

 

Get it, it is the best you can buy at that price, bar none.

[street-photography]

I use it for my portraits work and is already very sharp at 2.8

I use it on both film and digital camera (20D)

[jbq]

Very sharp, though on my 10D it's a bit long to be used as a portrait lens, it is much larger than my 85/1.8 and 1 1/3 stop slower. Notice that the 100/2 is cheaper, shorter, lighter, faster. If you go for a 100/2.8, be sure that you do so for the right reasons.

[johnb]

James,<br>

Then you heard right, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro is an excellent lens.<br>

Excellent (so sharp sometimes too excellent) for portraits and macros.<br>

Here is a shot taken with it:

<center><br><A href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3415203" title="Click to Open Photo Spec page" target="_blank"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3415203-lg.jpg" alt="Click to see Take a Sniff Photo Specs" style="WIDTH: 500px; HEIGHT: 333px"><br>

EF 100mm f/2.8 macro<br>

click for specs

</A></center>

[scotshot]

Thanks to everyone who answered. I will be buying it Monday. Thanks again.

[thomas_munch]

I'm late, but here's my 2 cents: You'll really like the USM version of this lens...I do! After years of dealing with more traditional types of macros that extend with close-focus applications, I very much appreciate the internal focus on this macro. The lens really shines when used on a stable tripod under controlled conditions (i.e., mirror lockup and cable release), but it's a great portrait lens as well.

 

--tom<div></div>