Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM for aquatic photography

[hwchoy]

I am personally using this lens and find it an excellent lens for fish shooting. It is excellent in the sense that it strikes a good balance between affordability (not very cheap, but not astronomically expensive either), useability and quality.

In terms of quality it is very good, images are extremely sharp and it is a true macro, meaning it projects the subject at 1:1 life size onto the sensor.

Useability wise, I think 100mm is a good focal length for most of the fishes we encounter that are under 6-inches. larger fishes requires you to stand well back but this guy can focus really close so even the smallest sub-cm fish can be taken with no problem. Also with longer focal length you will get narrower field-of-view, which means difficulty in tracking the moving fish through the view finder. 100mm is still quite practical in tracking fast swimming and jerky small fishes.

Also the fairly fast f/2.8 aperture allows a bright view in the view finder for you to track the fish.

Prices from $800-900 for used, and $1100+ for new.

[hwchoy]

someone selling at $900 http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=172516 but no freebie filters and hood.

[benny]

Choy,

Would you recommend this over the Tamron 90 mm macro which is also famed for it's sharpness? If so why?

How about Sigma's 105 mm macro? Some says that the finishing on the lens is almost comparable with Canon's.

And lastly, Tokina also have a macro lens in the same range, though not as highly rated as the above two. But price wise, it's certainly considering for entry level hobbyist.

From this site, it seems that it does not really matter.



Cheers,

[benny]

Oh... Choy,

And what's the deal between F2.8 and F/2.8?

Cheers,

[mervin]

Oh... Choy,

And what's the deal between F2.8 and F/2.8?

Cheers,

one with typo error and one without lor.

[hwchoy]

Oh... Choy,

And what's the deal between F2.8 and F/2.8?

Cheers,

I shall make a new thread to discuss this f/ thing and that "35mm-equivalent" misnomer.

[hwchoy]

Choy,

Would you recommend this over the Tamron 90 mm macro which is also famed for it's sharpness? If so why?

because it's a Canon

seriously I have no actual experience with the Tamron 90mm nor the Sigma 105mm. actually I once used the Tamron 90mm on an Nikon F4 film body, but being film I could not really tell how good the pix was based on my shooting technique, by the time the photos were developed.

I would like members with some of these lenses to make a new thread to talk about each of these lenses and also post relevant buy/sell opportunities so others keen on the lens may be alerted to good lobangs.

[hwchoy]

btw here's a review http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
note that hood is not included.

picture from www.photozone.de

[hwchoy]

here's another good deal at $850 http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=171338

this seller is reputable.

[Quixotic]

Just a noob question, would this be a good lens for insects macro as well?

Thanks.

[Simon]

Yes Quixotic, the lens is extremely good for insect as well, but only some.. (doesn't apply to skittish ones)

[hwchoy]

I think for insects the 180mm macro is better.

[Green Baron]

I am using the Tamron 90 for insects and fish and am very happy with the quality. The main diff btw the Tamron/Sigma and the Canon is that the Canon is internal focusing so the lens doesn't extend out when it focus on near object while the Singma and Tamron will extend out.

As to whether 180mm or 100mm is better for insect, I think each has its own plus and minus points, but if you have to pick only one, go for the 100mm. If you have spare $$, get both !