10-07-2011, 07:53 PM
I actually have to agree with Klaus here: I did test a 100L macro almost two years ago when they hadn't been out that long yet. I wasn't impressed, to be very honest. A good lens, yes, but not as good as I had hoped for.
Of course, I am a little crazy, because I prefer macro shots from a 135L and 50L with extension tubes and/or extender over that of the original 100 macro USM lens in the first place. The IQ of the 100 USM macro and 100L macro just didn't strike me as special, and rendering wise both 50L and 135L in macro mode so to speak IMO outperform it. At least the copy/copies I tested.
BTW, my choice at the time was between a (second) 100-400L and a 100L macro, and the one I picked was the 100-400L. BTW, this lens I use a lot for macro as well (often with a 500D close-up lens).
Kind regards, Wim
Of course, I am a little crazy, because I prefer macro shots from a 135L and 50L with extension tubes and/or extender over that of the original 100 macro USM lens in the first place. The IQ of the 100 USM macro and 100L macro just didn't strike me as special, and rendering wise both 50L and 135L in macro mode so to speak IMO outperform it. At least the copy/copies I tested.
BTW, my choice at the time was between a (second) 100-400L and a 100L macro, and the one I picked was the 100-400L. BTW, this lens I use a lot for macro as well (often with a 500D close-up lens).
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....