AF 100mm f2.8 macro ? capability in non-macro use ?

[bill_thorlin]

As I understand it from previous advice the 100mm 2.8 is (virtually)

as good as the 50mm 2.8 for image quality and has the advantage of

being less obtrusive due to greater distance from the object.

 

How does it perform in non-macro use ? Is it of any use as a standard

or portrait lens ? How does it perform in low light situations.

 

Do have the 50mm 2.8 macro at present but as I said before am a

little disconcerted by bashing bumblebees up the b-m (they are

disconcerted as well ! ). Also have a 50mm f1.7 which I think is a

great lens and which I would not change. Basically I am wondering if

I can get 3 lenses for 2 as it were - i.e. 100mm as macro and

standard ( obviously not as good as a 100mm f2 ) with the existing

50mm standard. Expansion of capability without an increase in numbers.

 

My kit requirements seem to constantly evolve - ah well at least I

haven't atrophied in this area yet.

[ken_edwards3]

I have been using the 100mm f2.8 for nature macro work for several months. It is a superb lens. When running/hiking I have the 100mm on the camera supported by a monopod. I carry a light 70-300 zoom macro and extension tubes in a pouch. I am very happy with the 100mm in low-light, non-macro shots.

I have not used it for portraits, it might be too sharp!

 

If you can get one for a good price you won't be disappointed.

 

Ken

[btmuir]

I recently used one handheld under tungstun with th ISO set to 1600 (20D). Model had a

slightly bulbous nose and it compressed it nicely. The 100 on a 1.6 crop may be too long

for some people but I was quite please with the results.

[jim_thompson6]

Hello Bill,

 

Although my 50mm comes close, the 100 macro is my favorite lens. As far as using it for non-macro situations, it performs excellently. Actually, I don't use its macro capacity as often as I should. Depending upon the kind of portraits you want to take, I would echo the above response that the lens might be too sharp. Of course, a "soft" filter or 2.8 focused right on the eyes (and at close distance) would rectify the situation. I can definitely recommend this lens.

 

Ciao,

Jim

[dennis_fallon1]

It's a great all purpose lens; obviously sharp (not only close up) with great bokeh (though I only used the non-D restyled version with circular aperture). It was my favorite portrait lens on film bodies, but sees very little use on the 7D - too long for candids for my taste, and I typically do macro with the 200/4. So it mostly sees use for general purpose nature photography (which I don't seem to get out & do often these days) when I happen to need that focal length (I don't have tele zooms). The 200/4 is a wonderful lens, but if I knew I were going to end up with the 7D & APS sensor, I might have passed on it, as the 100/2.8 provides more working distance with the same composition.

 

- Dennis

[georg_kern]

Optically, it is very good both in macro and normal use. But be aware that the focussing mechanism is "steep", because it has to cover a much bigger focussing range than a non-macro lens (you might also have experienced this with the 50/2,8). Exact focussing is therefore more difficult than with other short teles. But otherwise it is a near-perfect lens.

 

Regards

Georg

[brettdeacon]

I echo the other responses about the optical qualities of this lens. It is superb! Film scans show that my 100 2.8 is sharper than my 50 1.7. It is fast and excellent for low-light use. It is well-suited for landscape, nature, and macro photograhy (see picture below for an example) though as others have mentioned it may be a bit sharp for some portraits. This is easily my favorite (though not most-used) 35mm lens.

[bill_thorlin]

"Crikey Carruthers I think I might have had a good idea !"

 

Thank you all for the excellent advice ( no less than I expected on this forum ). I could be expanding my horizons without effectively expanding my kit - space is starting to be at a premium when travelling. All I have to do of course is to find one.

 

Brett - most impressed - could call it the clincher - thanks.