Wondering if any of you guys out there have had any hands on experience of the Canon non-usm 100mm macro lens. I am seriously considering getting the USM but will need to save a lot. However I have seen a few non-USM ones on ebay and they are a fair bit cheaper. Wondering if they are an option or not. I will be shooting mainly flowers but sure once I get the macro bug I will be shooting insects too.
Did you mean IS vs non IS?
I have a non IS one but it does have USM. I bought it on eBay a short time before the IS was released by Canon. I have been happy with it, have occasionally wished for the IS version, but I just persist. I have done a number of insect shots with it too - co-operative insects perhaps.
I do often use my tripod for macros - this is easy enough to do for flowers and even bees etc (just study the bees, predict where they will go and be patient).
I do prefer to have IS on my lens that go longer than 100mm, but haven't yet decided I need to trade in my non-IS one and save for one with IS for my 100mm f2.8 macro. I do tend to shoot f2.8-f4ish to compensate for absence of IS
I scrimped and bought the non-IS one. I barely use it because my hand is too unsteady and I'm too lazy to crack out the tripod, or the tripod simply isn't an option for the subject. I wish i had spent the extra for the IS. I'm going to sell it on eBay soon to offset the cost of another purchase. Let me know if you'd like to buy mine!!
i bought a non USM one a few months ago. happy with it at the moment. autofocus too slow. but i only shoot manual so don't use autofocus, therefore not a concern for me.
have you considered third party? i also considered 90mm tamron.
I have the f/2.8 100mm USM... got it when I first got my camera... if I'd known then about the IS, I'd probably have gone the IS. Hubby bought the camera though. That said though... I hand hold basically all my macros and don't usually have issues... latest one yesterday...
I have the Macro 100mm Cannon EF 2.8 L IS USM (LOL yes it copied that off the lens) i love it! hubby picked it and bought it but i use it ALL the time... its so versatile, love that idont have chance lens for marco to regular prime etc...
I have the non IS one (I don't think there is a non USM one is there?) and it is fantastic! I never ever use it with a tripod and I manage just fine, stalking down bugs and all.
100mm USM with IS
100mm without IS
and
100mm none USM and none IS
The one I was considering is the last. Its an older model. Think its pre 2000. Its ment to have slower autofocus which is not great for macro shots but I would not use autofocus anyway.
@cazann yes fairly big. I saw 2 non USM on ebay yesterday for around £200. USM ones are usually £350 I think. £300 used maybe unless you get lucky on bidding.
@brav I must admit I mainly use manual focus for macro shots, but the autofocus with USM is super fast and very useful for portraits and most other photography.
@brav Seems to be fast enough. So long as the light isn't too low and it has definite points to find focus... ie... won't focus on say a cutting board laying flat. I pointed around at different objects and it was pretty quick. Mine is the USM non IS lens. This one... http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/Camera-Lenses/EF100mm-f28-Macro-USM-Lens
The only reason for USM is if your camera body doesn't have a built in AF motor. If it has a built in motor, definitely go the non-USM way (less weight, lower cost, etc). If not, and you still want to go non-USM you will have to manually focus the lens no matter if you use it as macro or as a zoom.
I have the USM, non-IS version; and honestly I'm not sure there's a better macro lens out there, it's just fantastic! When chasing insects around the garden (bees, hover flies, butterflies, etc.), autofocus is quick and accurate!
The non-USM is a pretty old lens. USM is a big improvement in autofocus technology, if you plan to use the lens for non-macro purposes (e.g. portraits) it's very nice to have. For macro use you'll almost always be manually focusing so not so important.
The non-USM lens also extends during focusing, which is generally a bad thing in a macro lens, as it makes it even easier to hit what you're trying to photograph with the front of the lens. For some types of macro photography this isn't a huge problem, but for insect photography it will make it that much easier to scare your subject.
@mikehamm No Canon camera has a built-in AF motor. Both USM and non-USM lenses have motors built into the lens, but USM motors are faster, more accurate (less hunting) and quieter. Either will autofocus on any Canon EOS camera.
@abirkill@grizzlysghost@ozziehoffy@victorypuzzle Hey guys..I am about to finally crack and buy a macro lens. Ouch, I should not have used the word "crack" and "lens" in the same sentence. That made me wince. Anyway, I read this thread to try to glean some final wisdom about the lens choices. I have 2 questions..probably dumb ones, so forgive me. I am posting a link to Canon's site to the lens that I am looking at. The Canon 2.8 Macro USM IS ..but here are my concerns.
1. Once, I was looking at lens and they were SLR/film camera only, but I did not realize it. Is this one I have linked to the one for DSLR? A person at Wolf Camera told me that if it was less than $1100 then it was not a DSLR lens. But it appears to be on sale, and also, Wolf wants to make the sale, not have you go buy it online.
2. I read the product reviews right there on this page with the lens, and there are people trashing this lens. Saying it doesn't work right in manual mode, that the plastic is cheap, and things like that. I just would not be able to bear spending this kind of money ( it is $899 on here I think) and have it be crap. But you guys are saying you like the Canon 2.8 macro ... whether is has USM or IS or not. Right? Thanks for any in put you can give....I just don't want to order one for SLR by accident and maybe not be able to return it, or to get one that is not worth that money.
Wow, that's incredible advice -- I know camera stores are there to make sales, but being barefaced enough to try and tell consumers that they need to buy >$1000 lenses or they won't work is just appalling behaviour. I've not heard of Wolf Camera, but I will certainly make sure I avoid them in future.
They are, of course, talking absolute nonsense. While lens technology is constantly improving and newer lenses will generally be better than older lenses, it's impossible to make a sweeping statement that unless a lens costs a certain amount it will not work well with a DSLR. Any Canon-branded lens made in the last 25 years will work absolutely fine on your DSLR. (For example, the lens that almost every Canon photographer will own at some point in time, the 'nifty fifty' 50mm f/1.8 II, is the same today as when it was introduced in 1990).
You didn't post a link that I can see to the lens you are looking at, but the one we're mostly talking about here is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens. This is a fantastic macro lens at a great price of around $550, and will be absolutely stunning on your DSLR. Here is a photo I took with this exact lens -- click on it to see it bigger, it is absolutely pin-sharp:
Here is the exact lens on B&H Photo, who I would highly recommend as a company to buy from. Note the almost universal 5 star reviews:
This is a lens that isn't just good for the money, it's quite simply a good lens, regardless of price. I'd very highly recommend it, and I think you'd find few photographers who have used it who wouldn't do the same.
However, you mention a price point of $899, which makes me think you might be considering the L-glass version of this lens, as seen here:
This is pretty much the ultimate macro lens available in this focal length for Canon. Canon's L range are their top-of-the-range lenses, with the fanciest glass to reduce chromatic aberration and improve sharpness, improved build quality to cope with full-time professional usage, and so on. Again, check out the almost universally rave reviews.
If you can afford this lens, then you will get even better performance than the cheaper lens, and also get image stabilisation, which can help if trying to shoot macro subjects handheld (although bear in mind that this is typically a frustrating experience regardless of lens). If you can justify the price, you would not go wrong with this lens at all, but equally, I would say that the cheaper 100mm lens linked to is almost as good and costs nearly half as much.
Whichever one you choose, you will not be disappointed. Don't be pushed into the more expensive lens -- the $550 lens is absolutely stunning, and unless you plan on getting very heavily into macro photography, is probably the best buy.
@abirkill first off, thank you for taking the time to give advice and your water crown shot is fabulous! Secondly, so sorry I did not post the link! I forgot. You are right... I was looking at the Canon L series, 100mm 2.8 USM with IS... That is why some people griped about it. they thought one so exoensive should not be thin plastic, etc...this one guy kept saying how hard it was to set in manual or some such. ?? Thirdly, I probably poorly explained about Wolf camera ...the worker there was saying that she thought I must have been onlne looking at the film camera version of this Canon lens...based on that when she priced the lens, it was $1100 and I said I was seeing it for $800 or so...but I think Wolf charges full price but online stores can charge less. She insisted thatparticular lens would not be priced that low so i must have found the wrong lens. Wolf stores are all out of business now...they could not compete with online prices. And last, thank you for taking the time to give me some advice. I will read all the stuff in the link, and then I am just going to have to make a decision. I did get some money as a gift and my tax refund ...so I am thinking about going all out and getting the L series with USM and IS..so I won't regret it later and wish I had spent the extra money. Thank you again for your advice!
@espyetta The L lens isn't 'thin' plastic, but it does have a plastic body, unlike many L lenses. I guess the people who wrote the reviews were probably expecting the metal bodies that most of the other L lenses have.
Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about that at all. Canon use a very high-grade plastic, one of the family of engineering plastics. This is the kind of plastic that is used in motorcycle helmets, riot shields, and so on -- it's not at all flimsy or likely to break. To be honest I wish Canon would make more L lenses out of plastic, as they would be lighter!
I'm not sure about the switches -- it uses the same flush switches that most recent Canon lenses use. These are a little harder to operate than the older raised switches, but also harder to accidentally knock to the wrong setting. I have the same style of switch on most of my lenses, and while you might need to look around the camera to the lens itself to find the switch, rather than just feeling for it, I've never found that a problem.
It sounds like you can comfortably justify the L lens, so I'd say go for it! If you haven't read it already, I recommend the Digital Picture reviews of Canon lenses -- here is the review of the L lens.
I have owned the non-L USM version for quite a while...it's a pretty good macro lens, and is available relatively affordably on the used market. It is not a speed demon in terms of focusing, but it's a solid performer. My feeling about the non-L model is that its weakest characteristic is the sharp-sided bokeh rendering on out of focus points of light, on raindrops, and in foliage backgrounds; it produced very sharp-sided, and I think very ugly, geometric renderings on points of out of focus highlight matter...which can actually be pretty large expanses in many macro and close-up situations in the natural world (meaning outdoors).
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I have a non IS one but it does have USM. I bought it on eBay a short time before the IS was released by Canon. I have been happy with it, have occasionally wished for the IS version, but I just persist. I have done a number of insect shots with it too - co-operative insects perhaps.
I do often use my tripod for macros - this is easy enough to do for flowers and even bees etc (just study the bees, predict where they will go and be patient).
I do prefer to have IS on my lens that go longer than 100mm, but haven't yet decided I need to trade in my non-IS one and save for one with IS for my 100mm f2.8 macro. I do tend to shoot f2.8-f4ish to compensate for absence of IS
have you considered third party? i also considered 90mm tamron.
Here are some shots I've taken with it:
100mm USM with IS
100mm without IS
and
100mm none USM and none IS
The one I was considering is the last. Its an older model. Think its pre 2000. Its ment to have slower autofocus which is not great for macro shots but I would not use autofocus anyway.
The non-USM lens also extends during focusing, which is generally a bad thing in a macro lens, as it makes it even easier to hit what you're trying to photograph with the front of the lens. For some types of macro photography this isn't a huge problem, but for insect photography it will make it that much easier to scare your subject.
@mikehamm No Canon camera has a built-in AF motor. Both USM and non-USM lenses have motors built into the lens, but USM motors are faster, more accurate (less hunting) and quieter. Either will autofocus on any Canon EOS camera.
1. Once, I was looking at lens and they were SLR/film camera only, but I did not realize it. Is this one I have linked to the one for DSLR? A person at Wolf Camera told me that if it was less than $1100 then it was not a DSLR lens. But it appears to be on sale, and also, Wolf wants to make the sale, not have you go buy it online.
2. I read the product reviews right there on this page with the lens, and there are people trashing this lens. Saying it doesn't work right in manual mode, that the plastic is cheap, and things like that. I just would not be able to bear spending this kind of money ( it is $899 on here I think) and have it be crap. But you guys are saying you like the Canon 2.8 macro ... whether is has USM or IS or not. Right? Thanks for any in put you can give....I just don't want to order one for SLR by accident and maybe not be able to return it, or to get one that is not worth that money.
Wow, that's incredible advice -- I know camera stores are there to make sales, but being barefaced enough to try and tell consumers that they need to buy >$1000 lenses or they won't work is just appalling behaviour. I've not heard of Wolf Camera, but I will certainly make sure I avoid them in future.
They are, of course, talking absolute nonsense. While lens technology is constantly improving and newer lenses will generally be better than older lenses, it's impossible to make a sweeping statement that unless a lens costs a certain amount it will not work well with a DSLR. Any Canon-branded lens made in the last 25 years will work absolutely fine on your DSLR. (For example, the lens that almost every Canon photographer will own at some point in time, the 'nifty fifty' 50mm f/1.8 II, is the same today as when it was introduced in 1990).
You didn't post a link that I can see to the lens you are looking at, but the one we're mostly talking about here is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens. This is a fantastic macro lens at a great price of around $550, and will be absolutely stunning on your DSLR. Here is a photo I took with this exact lens -- click on it to see it bigger, it is absolutely pin-sharp:
Here is the exact lens on B&H Photo, who I would highly recommend as a company to buy from. Note the almost universal 5 star reviews:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html
This is a lens that isn't just good for the money, it's quite simply a good lens, regardless of price. I'd very highly recommend it, and I think you'd find few photographers who have used it who wouldn't do the same.
However, you mention a price point of $899, which makes me think you might be considering the L-glass version of this lens, as seen here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/647011-USA/Canon_3554B002_EF_100mm_f_2_8L_Macro.html
This is pretty much the ultimate macro lens available in this focal length for Canon. Canon's L range are their top-of-the-range lenses, with the fanciest glass to reduce chromatic aberration and improve sharpness, improved build quality to cope with full-time professional usage, and so on. Again, check out the almost universally rave reviews.
If you can afford this lens, then you will get even better performance than the cheaper lens, and also get image stabilisation, which can help if trying to shoot macro subjects handheld (although bear in mind that this is typically a frustrating experience regardless of lens). If you can justify the price, you would not go wrong with this lens at all, but equally, I would say that the cheaper 100mm lens linked to is almost as good and costs nearly half as much.
Whichever one you choose, you will not be disappointed. Don't be pushed into the more expensive lens -- the $550 lens is absolutely stunning, and unless you plan on getting very heavily into macro photography, is probably the best buy.
Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about that at all. Canon use a very high-grade plastic, one of the family of engineering plastics. This is the kind of plastic that is used in motorcycle helmets, riot shields, and so on -- it's not at all flimsy or likely to break. To be honest I wish Canon would make more L lenses out of plastic, as they would be lighter!
I'm not sure about the switches -- it uses the same flush switches that most recent Canon lenses use. These are a little harder to operate than the older raised switches, but also harder to accidentally knock to the wrong setting. I have the same style of switch on most of my lenses, and while you might need to look around the camera to the lens itself to find the switch, rather than just feeling for it, I've never found that a problem.
It sounds like you can comfortably justify the L lens, so I'd say go for it! If you haven't read it already, I recommend the Digital Picture reviews of Canon lenses -- here is the review of the L lens.