I am considering buying my first prime lens...i have found two 100mm lenses, both used, for good prices. What are the differences in sharpness, contrast, anything, between the 100mm f/2 and the 100mm f/2.8 macro? i won't be doing macro photography so which should i buy? is the larger aperture worth the price?

-- peter bg (pbg333@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001

Answers

They are both very sharp lenses. The macro is probably a bit sharper. But the 100 f/2 has a USM focusing motor with FTM. Unless the 100 f/2.8 macro is the new USM version, it does not. Focusing is rather slow with that lens. Most people that have them say that because of focusing speed & other factors it isn't the best portrait lens. But it is a great macro lens. The 100 f/2 should be a bit less money than the macro unless the new USM macro has driven the used price of the non USM macro way down.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), May 23, 2001.

thanks.

-- peter bg (pbg333@hotmail.com), May 24, 2001.

I've owned the older EOS 100/2.8 (non-USM) macro for many years, and find that it is not only a marvelous macro lens, but it's also a marvelous "general" 100mm lens, and that includes portraits. So long as you take the time to pre-focus on (for example) a subject's face, the autofocus speed of the macro is damn-near as fast as a regular USM lens, and in my experience it is every bit as accurate. IMO, unless you are set on getting the EOS 180/3.5L macro, the 100/2.8 macro is the wisest choice among 100mm lenses, as it handles both macro and general 100mm tasks extraordinarily well. For portraits, the macro may at times be too sharp, as it will tend to be very revealing of skin flaws, etc. But my God, point the macro at someone's beautiful eye(s), and it will create a gorgeously sharp and detailed slide.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), May 27, 2001.

Perhaps I should have checked a little deeper into the relative sharpness of these two lenses before buying the 100/f2, but I probably would still have made the same choice. I can not compare the two as I have not used the 2.8 macro, but I can tell you how pleased I am with the 100/f2. I bought it for the aperture. It is my second prime lens (my first was the 50/f1.4) and I use it primarily for protraits.

Results have been consistantly excellent in all areas: clarity, color rendition, focusing, and sharpness.

It's minimum focusing distance is just under 2 feet, I think, which is plenty close for portrait work. And it acts as secondary to my 50mm for outdoor/nature work. I like the FTM focusing feature, but I almost always use AF and it has performed beautifully in most lighting. I frequently use this lens indoors without a flash and it does fine - the 50mm 1.4 is better for this use (its about two stops better: one for the aperature, and one for the focal length) but usually requires the photographer to be relatively close to the subject for optimal compisition. The 100/f2 works very well for indoor candids when you do not want to intrude physically, or with an attention-getting flash.

I hope I haven't given too much usless info. To answer your question about price - it depends on what you shoot, but if you are not shooting macro and it is simply a matter of price (as opposed to macro vs. available light) then yes, the aperture is worth it.

Derrick

-- Derrick L Morin (morin@fttr.navy.mil), May 30, 2001.