Canon 100 2.8 macro... Should I keep it?

[vassil_mihov]

Hi everybody,

 

I have the following set up: Digital Rebel with kit lens, Sigma 28

1.8, Canon 50 1.8 mkI, Canon 100 2.8 macro, Sigma 70-200 2.8, 2x

teleconverter, Bigen tripod, wired remote, etc...

 

Canon 100 2.8 may be the sharpest lens among those, but I rarely use

it. The sigma 70-200 is excellent and more versatile (and the same

aperture), so it gets almost all the action in this range, including

portraits (if you are not familiar with it first-hand, please spare

the anti-sigma spam).

 

So, should I keep the 100mm? Or, what should I do to start using it

more? Any inspirational ideas? Obviously, I don't use it that much

for its main (macro) purpose.

 

P.S. I kind of feel the same way about the 50mm. Probably the main

reason I will keep it is that I got a second, film, body; otherwise,

the 28 1.8, another excellent non-Canon lens, is perfect on the

digital body, and gets a lot more use than the 50mm.

[simonpg]

Only you know what lenses you prefer to use, but the 100mm f2.8 macro is a sensational lens and the best in its class. It's an ideal portrait lens even with the digital magnification effect up to 130mm or 160mm equivalents. It's also an outstanding macro lens. Plus like all primes, if you are taking serious shots at that focal length it will kill any zoom you have. Much the same goes for your 50mm althought the f1.4 version is even better. By the way, the 100mm is quite expensive, so why sell it on the used market - unless the money you get back can be put to even better use.Again, only you can decide that.

[les]

Well, if you are not into macro photography...

I keep mine (and I have Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM too).

Some of the pics here were taken with 100mm macro, easy to say which ones:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=362714

[johnlund]

If you don't use it over an extended period of time, you might as well sell it. However, you might enjoy the lens more if you went on an outing or two with it alone. I've found that I go through little phases of prefering one type of shooting over another, and sometimes that means a shift in interest from one lens to another.

 

As for inspiration, try shooting stuff for which you might normally use another lens, like landscapes (distant/narrow, stitched), abstracts, flocks in flight, etc. Macro textures are fun, too.

[eos 10 fan]

A Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set (12, 20 & 36mm) [~USD$130] or a 77mm 500D [~USD$135] could be used for the rare times when you want to shoot the little bits.

 

--

[jon_austin]

I bought this lens last summer for my 10D, and returned it after about a week. I wanted a lens for 50/50 duty between macro and portrait, but although it's excellent at both, I found the 160mm-equivalent field of view too long for my portrait purposes. So I replaced it with the 50mm f/2.5 macro, with which I'm very happy.

 

On the 10D, the 50mm's macro capabilities nearly equal that of the 100 on a film/full sensor body, and the 80mm-equivalent field of view is great for portraits. I was concerned that I might be bothered by its lack of USM, but it doesn't faze me at all. (I'll probably add an 85 f/1.8 later this year for a 135mm portrait-equivalent.)

 

I find it interesting that you own two very sharp Canon primes, and yet, you seem to favor your Sigmas. If you're ambivalent about selling either of these lenses, I'd recommend advertising them and only letting them go if you can get top dollar commensurate with their condition.

[vassil_mihov]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

 

Jon, I just happen to prefer the focal lenghts (in digital with 1.6 crop factor) of the 28mm (effective around 44mm) and the 70-200; they just happen to be Sigmas. They could have been Canons if I could justify spending the money for the Canon 2.8 70-200, or if Canon made a good 28 1.8 (they have a good 28 2.8).

 

Basically, the 50 (effective 80mm) is a little odd on digital; long for normal, and relatively short for portraits. I'll keep it as my normal lens on the film body, as this is the true focal lenght view that I like.

 

I've found the 100 to be the sharpest of the bunch, but have not found its best use yet (as I have not done much macro). If it were vastly superior to the 70-200, I'd use it more for portraits, but the 70-200 is very good, optically on par with Canon's version.

 

I'll give it a chance and use it for a specific project or two. Also, I bought it used for a good price, so I don't think I'll have a problem getting my money back, and neither think that it ties up a ton of money in unused equipment.

 

Thanks again for everybody's suggestions. If anyone has done a recent macro project, I'll appreciate a few ideas.

[erb_duchenne]

It's rather a costly lens to just buy and keep. Try some macro... if it's really not your forte... let someone who's just dying to get their hands on a 100mm macro but can't afford it a chance :P

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I'm going through a very similar choice with the same lens-do i sell my best lens or admit it just doesn't get enough use ?<BR>

In my case there is another lens i would find more use for so i think i'll sell it.

 

<P>It will be tough though...on print film the 100/2.8 is simply incredible-like you could step into the picture.I have yet to see such results on the 300D but i'll try it abit more and decide for sure then

[patrick_s2]

If it sees no use, sell it. If it sees a little use, but that use pays money, keep it. Great lens. I bought my wife one for xmas, and she used it a couple of times, and I am selling it now on the bay with a ring flash. Hate to see it go, but I know I'll never use it myself, as I do all my macro with a blad system with tubes on a tripod.

 

Patrick

[catchlight]

Vassil, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817440526/qid=1084597235/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/103-5208947-7455034?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">read this</a> -- to learn more about what your macro can do.<p>

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817440526/qid=1084597235/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/103-5208947-7455034?v=glance&s=books&n=507846<p>

It's a pity to have a lens that brilliant gathering dust.