Canon 100mm 2.0 recommended?

[Manfr3d]

I am looking for a nice short telephoto prime to accompany my 24mm/2.8 and 50mm/1.8 lens on the 5D Mark II. I want to use it for street, people and walk round shooting. But can't decide which of the following 100mm lenses is best for me:

Canon 100mm/2.0 USM
or
Canon 100mm/2.8 USM Macro 1:1

I previously owned the 85mm/1.8 and loved how small and fast it was. But from what I am reading the macro seems to be the better performer (?) compared to the 100mm 2.0. I don't need real 1:1 macro and would only buy the macro if it outperformed the other. What do you recommend?

[ziggy53]

I do regard the Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro as the superior of those 2 lenses, unless you need f2. The Macro f2.8 does have better flat-field performance and does not suffer from slow AF, as some other macro lenses do suffer.

"But" f2 is a major sell for the Canon EF 100mm, f/2 USM and it is only a bit less quality overall versus the f2.8 Macro.

Personally,for street work I would go with the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/2.8L USM for the extra flexibility of use.

[eichert12]

Personally,for street work I would go with the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/2.8L USM for the extra flexibility of use.

Hey Ziggy,

I've seen a lot of people make the same recommendation and the thing that always pops in my head when people say that is it seems like a big/bulky lens to carry around. I don't for a second question the fact that its a great lens, my question is do you feel like it's too big/bulky at all when carrying it around and does that result in you going for a different lens in its place?

Cheers,
Steve

[Manfr3d]

I think the 70-200mm/2.8 L is really too heavy and obtrusive for what I want to shoot. I sold one a while ago because it was too heavy to lug around all day.

[ChatKat]

I have the 100 2.8 Macro and in a million years, I would not use it for street photography. It's great for portraits or for details but not for a walk around.

The 70-200 is good even the 4.0is version. Personally, my favorite to use for walk around is the 24-105 4.0is followed by the 24-70 2.8is. Third would be my 50 1.2 or even the 50 1.4.

[ziggy53]

Hey Ziggy,

I've seen a lot of people make the same recommendation and the thing that always pops in my head when people say that is it seems like a big/bulky lens to carry around. I don't for a second question the fact that its a great lens, my question is do you feel like it's too big/bulky at all when carrying it around and does that result in you going for a different lens in its place?

Cheers,
Steve

I did in fact get the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM for my travel lens, except I replace it with the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/2.8L USM if I know I will be doing interior work or low-light outdoors. (The f2.8 fits the same compartment in my bag but I do have to stow the hood of the f2.8 differently.)

Yes, it's heavy, but I do use it when I need to use it. I feel the extra versatility of the lens offsets the difference in sharpness and weight compared to the primes.

I am a bit odd in that I have 3 zooms in the 70-200mm-ish range at f2.8. I regard that as an important range and aperture for my style of shooting and my projects.

[pathfinder]

I actually think whether you are using a full frame or an APS based camera is a very important question here.

I own a 70-200 f2.8 IS L also, but it would not be my choice for street shooting at all. Too big, too white, too "look at me"

On a full frame camera a 24-105 S L and a 135 f2 L are a great pairing. I think for street if you want 70-200, then I would prefer a black lens ( Nikon? Or maybe a Tamron for EOS bodies.) Maybe even Canon's 7/-300 IS DO which is small and black. I suspect this may be why Michael Reichman uses the 70-300 IS DO for much of his street work as well.

For a 40D, 50D I would suggest the 17-55 f2.8 IS and maybe the 85 f1.8 or even the 135 f2.8 L All of these lenses are smaller, black, and unobtrusive.:clap

Ziggy must be stronger than me, as I prefer not to carry the large white Canon cannon ( 70-200 f2.8 ISL ) For my spouse, I got smart, and bought her the f4 version!

Shooting street is such a highly personal thing, but most good street shooters tend to shoot wide rather than long glass. Think 35mm on a full frame body. F1.4 L 35mm maybe?

[Nikolai]

I am looking for a nice short telephoto prime to accompany my 24mm/2.8 and 50mm/1.8 lens on the 5D Mark II. I want to use it for street, people and walk round shooting. But can't decide which of the following 100mm lenses is best for me:

Canon 100mm/2.0 USM
or
Canon 100mm/2.8 USM Macro 1:1

I previously owned the 85mm/1.8 and loved how small and fast it was. But from what I am reading the macro seems to be the better performer (?) compared to the 100mm 2.0. I don't need real 1:1 macro and would only buy the macro if it outperformed the other. What do you recommend?

I don't have on hand experience with 100/2.0, I only read about it (e.g. here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)), but I do own - and often use - 100/2.8 Macro. I really like its macro capability. Note, I don't shoot insects, I shoot people, so for me it a great way to "zoom" into a facial feature, an eye, a piece of jewelry, etc. while doing portraits...

So I guess it all depends on the suggested usage. For sports I'd probably go with a faster one (i.e. non macro f/2.0), but then again, I think 100mm is not "long" enough for most sports. :scratch

HTH

[Nikolai]

Since it came down to 70-200/2.8 IS USM... :-) I *love* that lens. Yes, it's heavy, but I never considered weight as an important factor in image capturing, otherwise I'd have probably stayed with ultracompact superzoom P&S. Maybe when I get to Jim's years :wink I'll change my tune, but as of now I have no desire to change it to a lighter version, despite having some palms/elbows problems on both hands. And yes, I used it for hours non-stop, so I know what's involved..:D

[Tee Why]

Why get a macro if you aren't going to do macro. Personally, I'd prefer the speed if you want to shoot portraits and maybe even low light stuff.

Why not another 85mm f1.8. Other than the slight difference in the focal length and speed, the optics of the 85mm f1.8 and the 100mm f2 are pretty much identical.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/85v100

[Manfr3d]

I shoot with a full frame camera. Part of my goal is to have unobtrusive set of primes. I really enjoy the "restricted" shooting with them. My 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 allow me to blend in with the crowd. L lenses are for the most part too heavy, expensive or big or white. Thats why I would prefer a 100mm prime like the macro and the 2.0.

[Shima]

I have the 100 2.8 Macro, haven't shot with it a ton on my FF now that I have that, but I do love it and found it to be a great performer the numerous times I used it on my 40D. I only whipped it out at my last wedding to take the ring shots, otherwise I primarily stuck to the 35L, 50 1.4, and 135L on my 5D2 for the people shots. I plan to start messing around more w/ the macro though on my full frame and seeing how she performs on it. I don't have any experience w/ the 100 2.0

[pathfinder]

Since it came down to 70-200/2.8 IS USM... :-) I *love* that lens. Yes, it's heavy, but I never considered weight as an important factor in image capturing, otherwise I'd have probably stayed with ultracompact superzoom P&S. Maybe when I get to Jim's years :wink I'll change my tune, but as of now I have no desire to change it to a lighter version, despite having some palms/elbows problems on both hands. And yes, I used it for hours non-stop, so I know what's involved..:D

Thanks so much, Nik!!:rofl :rofl :rofl

I carried that lens all over Utah last fall, and always ended up with something longer or shorter on my camera. I like the lens, don't get me wrong, I just don't seem to use it that often.:dunno

[Nikolai]

Thanks so much, Nik!!:rofl :rofl :rofl
You're welcome, man!
I carried that lens all over Utah last fall, and always ended up with something longer or shorter on my camera. I like the lens, don't get me wrong, I just don't seem to use it that often.:dunno
I don't seem to find it useful for landscapes either. For those I seem to use either extreme wide (10-22) or extreme tele (100-400), with just a bit of 17-55. But for people....

[jdryan3]

I think the 70-200mm/2.8 L is really too heavy and obtrusive for what I want to shoot. I sold one a while ago because it was too heavy to lug around all day.
I used this lens last year for candids at a birthday party on a 5D. Definitely unobtrusive, almost like the nifty fifty. These were all in a large social hall, no flash.

http://www.jdryan3.com/photos/261237424_bKnCn-M.jpg[/URL]

http://www.jdryan3.com/photos/261243735_vRD38-M.jpg

http://www.jdryan3.com/photos/261249828_tzhEb-M.jpg

http://www.jdryan3.com/photos/261249973_vxbNc-M.jpg

http://www.jdryan3.com/photos/261253507_o8SuW-M.jpg

More [URL="http://www.jdryan3.com/gallery/4444909_5HBpz/1/261237424_bKnCn"]here (http://www.jdryan3.com/photos/261237424_bKnCn-M.jpg)

All are in the f/2 to f/2.5 range at ISO 400. Again, inside with no flash. I chose these since they were more point and shoot than 'setup' shots. I like the lens for what it is, but I'm not sure it would be my first choice as a walk around lens - I prefer something in the 35-50 range, maybe the 24-70 (which is the lens I actually keep on my 5D when traveling).

Oh, and this one was actually one of the very first shots I took with my 50D. It is f/2 ISO 1600 in Aaron's kitchen the night before we took off for Sedona on our way to Moab.

http://www.jdryan3.com/photos/397217780_c5G7F-M.jpg
So if you want 160 as a walk along length on a crop, go for it. I found it a weird length - not quite long enough as a telephoto, but definitely too long at times to get good context in the shots.

[Manfr3d]

So if you want 160 as a walk along length on a crop, go for it. I found it a weird length - not quite long enough as a telephoto, but definitely too long at times to get good context in the shots.

Drool! 100mm on FF for me. Walk around as in "walk around to find sth to photograph". But I'm no smarter than before .. seems that there is a reason why the 100mm 2.0 isn't overly popular.

[jdryan3]

Drool! 100mm on FF for me. Walk around as in "walk around to find sth to photograph". But I'm no smarter than before .. seems that there is a reason why the 100mm 2.0 isn't overly popular.

I got it when it when I was trying to start using faster lenses and primes - and the price point was fairly sweet compared to other lenses. I guess I look at it as more of a niche lens, so it isn't really part of my standard kit. But I won't part with it. I still hope to find a place for it with that 50D. :wink