Macro for EOS 7D

[lady topaz]

Hi, my good lady posted on here prior to Christmas re the pros and cons of Nikon v's Canon. In the end she bought me the 7D which is fantastic and I am getting to terms with it.
Now I am keen on trying 'macro' photography, and considering either the 100mm F2.8 USM or the 100mm F2,8 L IS USM. Making assumptions here, I am guessing the difference is the image stability!!!. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Now as an enthusiastic but pretty amateur user, will I honestly notice the difference to warrant almost double the price.
Alternatively, is there another brand you can suggest which will suffice?

Many thanks

Tony

[Dr MAD]

the new 'L' version is awesome although I never had the original to compare it to.

DPreview has a good write up on it...

"Of course most potential buyers will want to know whether the lens justifies the additional cost over the highly-regarded EF 100mm F2.8 USM Macro which remains in Canon's lineup; and many existing owners of that version will also be interested to find out whether it's worth upgrading. This isn't an easy question to answer, but there's no doubt that the 'L' lens is just that bit better in almost every respect. It's clearly sharper at larger apertures (up to about F5.6), which will arguably be most beneficial to users of high resolution APS-C bodies; it's also better built, focuses faster, and of course includes image stabilization. If you want or need the very best, then it's definitely worthwhile, but the older lens is still extremely good in its own right, and for most buyers offers far better value. (The price differential to well-respected alternatives from third party lens manufacturers such as Sigma and Tamron is greater still.)"

Full review here

Hope that helps

Dan

[lady topaz]

Dr MAD said:

the new 'L' version is awesome although I never had the original to compare it to.

DPreview has a good write up on it...

"Of course most potential buyers will want to know whether the lens justifies the additional cost over the highly-regarded EF 100mm F2.8 USM Macro which remains in Canon's lineup; and many existing owners of that version will also be interested to find out whether it's worth upgrading. This isn't an easy question to answer, but there's no doubt that the 'L' lens is just that bit better in almost every respect. It's clearly sharper at larger apertures (up to about F5.6), which will arguably be most beneficial to users of high resolution APS-C bodies; it's also better built, focuses faster, and of course includes image stabilization. If you want or need the very best, then it's definitely worthwhile, but the older lens is still extremely good in its own right, and for most buyers offers far better value. (The price differential to well-respected alternatives from third party lens manufacturers such as Sigma and Tamron is greater still.)"

Full review here

Hope that helps




Dan

Thanks Dan, very useful

[flat-planedCrank]

lady topaz said:

Hi, my good lady posted on here prior to Christmas re the pros and cons of Nikon v's Canon. In the end she bought me the 7D which is fantastic and I am getting to terms with it.
Now I am keen on trying 'macro' photography, and considering either the 100mm F2.8 USM or the 100mm F2,8 L IS USM. Making assumptions here, I am guessing the difference is the image stability!!!. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Now as an enthusiastic but pretty amateur user, will I honestly notice the difference to warrant almost double the price.
Alternatively, is there another brand you can suggest which will suffice?

Many thanks

Tony

Seemingly a fair few well regarded macro lenses, the Canon 100mm f2.8 being one of them. For less money (!) the Sigma 105mm f2.8 seems to review well, but if I had the choice I'd take the Canon 100mm IS every time

Oh, another Canon 100mm f2.8 IS review.


Other slightly macro crazy options? Would be remiss not to mention the VERY macro Canon MP-E 65mm.
Its an astonishing bit of kit, I believe resident macro-logist 4hero is a big fan Check his macro stuff on flickr
Think you really need to get the Canon MT-24 EX flash setup as well though.
Its really a macro-only lens though, won't be taking many portraits with it



Cheers.

[Dr MAD]

lady topaz said:

Thanks Dan, very useful

You're very welcome I haven't had much of a chance to test mine yet but here's one from the quick play that I have had. I'm also using the 7D and it appears to work well. Autofocus is lightning fast. This was hand held using the 580EX II flash off camera bounced off a reflector, straight out of the camera :



I'm happy and looking forward to spring when all the little beasties come out to play in the garden!! I've also got the MPE-65 as mentioned above but it really is a different kettle of fish and I have to say I'm not getting the best out of it. Definitely not a pick up and shoot lens so I may sell it on as I don't really have the time it needs dedicating to it.

Dan

[Chicken Pox]

cough*Tamron 90mm 2.8f DI Macro*cough apparently beat the Canon 100mm in tests and certainly beats it on price if you're not sure Macro is going to be your thing it's a nice portrait lens too.
just start to play with the small stuff myself




If you want to have look at larger sizes cacti/flowers/some of the toys no bugs yet (don't have a dedicated Macro flash either) http://www.flickr.com/photos/16388901@N02/sets/721...

[RobDickinson]

7D does something funky with autofocus and the 100L macro, cant remember what but I think it gears itself down to a more precice mode or something.

The IS is very handy when handholding as your likely to want to stop down too - probably only relevant if your shooting in natural light (i.e. without macro flash).

IMO macro and tripods is a pain if things are moving , if not definatly worth investing in some kind of rail mount.

So if your going to handhold with no flash and/or AF look at the L.

[4hero]

I have never felt a need for IS on my 100mm to be honest, and always shoot hand-held. I'm guessing the fact that I use the MT-24 flash with the 100mm helps this somewhat. Still, can't see a justification for spending almost double the price on IS for this type of photography. It's all down to practice, practice and more practice

The 100mm is a lovely lens, although don't use mine so much now with having the MP-E65. Completely different lenses though, when you can only get 3/4 of a 50p peice with the MP-E at maximum distance (it's a bit limited). The 100mm is also great for portraits, a brilliant lens for the price!

edited to add a few example shots with the 40D and 100mm f2.8









And my favourite shot taken with this lens, actually, probably one of my favourite macro shots to date! Shot hand-held, manually focused.

Edited by 4hero on Monday 15th February 23:35

[lady topaz]

Thank you for all the advice guys. Much appreciated and some of the shots have wetted my appetite even more.
Am I being overly optimistic to think that a retailer such as Jessops would have both lenses for me to try in order to see which, if any, I am more comfortable?
Or is this just wishful thinking?

Thanks

Tony

[Pvapour]

another vote for the ef100 (non IS) works well with a x2 TC as well for work you cant get as close to, AF still works well to.

Tamron seem to get equal if not better reviews also.

IS on the 'L' didn't get much of a nod on real close work from what I remember??

100% pic (with PP)

25%

[flat-planedCrank]

lady topaz said:

Am I being overly optimistic to think that a retailer such as Jessops would have both lenses for me to try in order to see which, if any, I am more comfortable?

Give them a bell and see if they have any stock In my experience Jessops are fine with people taking their camera along to test-drive a couple lenses...


Cheers.