I AM LOOKING IN TO PURCHASING A 100MM LENS FOR PORTRAITS ETC. SHOULD I GO WITH THE FASTER LENS OR IS IT WORTH A LITTLE LOSS OF SPEED TO HAVE THE MACRO FEATURE ( WHICH I MAY USE, ALTHOUGH SPARINGLY ). ANY FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED.

THANKS....

-- BRIAN HIEBER (hiebs@123.net), March 29, 2000

Answers

ALSO WILL THERE BE ANY DIFFERANCE IN THE SHARPNESS OF EITHER LENSE?

-- BRIAN (HIEBS@123.NET), March 29, 2000.

i also am in search of a good portrait lens. and last weekend, i rented the 100/f2 for a wedding. and let me tell you, it kicks butt. fast focus (usm), light, easy to handle and the pictures are very sharp. never used the 100/f2.8 macro, but i know that it's not an usm lens, thus you loose the manual focus override... just for that reason alone, i go for the 100/f2. did you also consider the 85/f1.8?

-- howard shen (hshen@lsm.org), March 29, 2000.

Brian,

Canon has a new 100mm f2.8 macro lens that is a USM version that I believe will have full-time-manual focusubg (FTM). That may make your decision harder if based on functional characteristics. The basic design of the two lenses differs more than just the loss of an f-stop with the macro lens. I suggest that you do what Howard did and rent the lenses, take a lot of pictures over a weekend doing the kind of photography that you are mostly likely to do and compare the two.

I own and use the 100 f2.0 model. It is very sharp and the bokeh is very nice in portraits (the manner in which the out of focus background appears). I have added a Nikon closeup lens to the front of this lens for pseudo macro photography with acceptable results (for me).

This is really a matter of how you will use the lens that you purchase and what you want the images to look like. I have used the 85mm f1.8 USM, and although appearing to be very similar in basic specs to the 100mm f2.0, the images they produce is different. The final decision has to be based on how you will use the lens and what you want the final image to look like. There is a market for all three lenses, that is why Canon makes all three. But there are subtle differences.

Good luck.

Dick

-- Richard Snyder (rsnyder@lc.cc.il.us), March 30, 2000.

Please stop typing in all upper-case letters, as it amounts to shouting, and is rather annoying. Also, you would do well to check the archives and the SEARCH feature to find opinions on this FAQ.--> IMO, the difference in lens speed between f2 and f/2.8 is fairly trivial, while the advantages of the macro lens are quite substantial. If you would like to whet your appetite for macro photography, visit your local library and check out Joseph Meehan's THE ART OF CLOSEUP PHOTOGRAPHY, as well as John Shaw's CLOSEUPS IN NATURE.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), March 30, 2000.

I have the new 100 mm macro f/2.8 USM. It does have full time manual focus, it has internal focusing and it is very fast as one would come to expect from a ring-USM lens. It focuses from infinity to 1/1 ratio without changing its size, and, from my first rolls of film, it seems very very sharp. What more could you ask of a lens ? Ah, of course, it's a bit heavy (about 700 grams) and expensive, but this is a penalty I was willing to accept.

-- Rodolfo Gamberale (r.gamberale@tin.it), April 20, 2000.

If you can afford it, I would go for the 100mm macro. I really like the close focusing distance of the macro lens, it's quite versatile for wildlife photography and product photography (for when you sell something on ebay?). Anyway, I find the macro a bit unsuited for portrait photos because it is too sharp. Before I bought a soft focus filter, I could count the pores in people's faces. But, then again, the filter solved those problems.

-- Jeff Higa (jeff@launchmultimedia.com), April 29, 2000.