Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: spotmeter on October 12, 2009, 08:53:47 pm
-
I received the new Canon 100mm f2.8L II Macro IS last week and spent the weekend testing it against my old Canon 100mm macro with resolution and real world tests.
The MTF graphs published by Canon indicate the new lens would be far superior to the old one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...mp;modelid=7400 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7400)
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...p;modelid=19091 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=19091)
Unfortunately, the difference did not show up in my tests.
On resolution charts in the center and four corners, the lenses were identical. Excellent from f4 to f11, but identical. All shots were taken on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2.
On real world shots of the same landscape scene, also on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2, I could not tell any difference between the two at 100%. The new lens was no better in resolution, contrast or color.
The new lens was slightly sharper at f2.8 than the old one, has very fast auto focus and image stabilization, so it would be a good lens for portraits.
But since I never shoot wide open or hand held, I returned the lens.
If anyone has tested a 100mm lens that is sharper than the old Canon 100mm macro, please let me know.
-
IOn resolution charts in the center and four corners, the lenses were identical. Excellent from f4 to f11, but identical. All shots were taken on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2.
On real world shots of the same landscape scene, also on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2, I could not tell any difference between the two at 100%. The new lens was no better in resolution, contrast or color.
The thing is that 100mm macro lenses are pretty easy to design relative to other formulas and have been excellent performers for many years.
What you are probably seeing is that an excellent lens doesn't appear to be better than another excellent lens because they both outperform the sensor of the body you are trying them on.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree with Bernard ... tough to improve on something that is already so good.
I think the big change is the addition if IS ... if that's helpful then the new lens might be a good option, otherwise not much reason to upgrade.
-
Perhaps you will just have to wait and test the lenses out on Canon's 1DS4 30+ MP camera. Probably out next year
-
In my experience, this kind of difference in MTF (of ~.65 wide open to ~.8 near the center) even given Canon's theoretical figures, should be at least detectable in your images on a 5D2. The difference may or may not jump out at you given the performance of the older optic but I believe you should be able to detect the difference.
Either manufacturing of real-world lenses nullifies any advantage (unlikely) or there is large sample variation (more likely). Assuming you've double-checked for reasonable testing errors, I'd suggest perhaps trying another 100L lens?
Best,
-
On resolution charts in the center and four corners, the lenses were identical. Excellent from f4 to f11, but identical. All shots were taken on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2.
I suppose earlier model is so sharp that you could see bigger difference in your focusing technique rather than in optical qualities of those lenses. With my 5DMKII manual lcd-focusing in 10x -setting has been a easy way for more accurate focusing compared to an angled viewfinder.
With my applications I anticipated the differences being mainly in IS and af and wasn't even considering the upgrade to new 100mm.
-
Excellent, many thanks for the info. I shall not hurry to spend the money and stick with my much used and much loved "old and outdated" lens
IS and sealing are the things that appeal, but seems extravagant for little if any discernible IQ improvement. I cannot see how there will be enormous gains from IS for macro work, but interested if anyone has found this to be of help.
-
I received the new Canon 100mm f2.8L II Macro IS last week and spent the weekend testing it against my old Canon 100mm macro with resolution and real world tests.
The MTF graphs published by Canon indicate the new lens would be far superior to the old one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...mp;modelid=7400 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7400)
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...p;modelid=19091 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=19091)
Unfortunately, the difference did not show up in my tests.
On resolution charts in the center and four corners, the lenses were identical. Excellent from f4 to f11, but identical. All shots were taken on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2.
On real world shots of the same landscape scene, also on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2, I could not tell any difference between the two at 100%. The new lens was no better in resolution, contrast or color.
The new lens was slightly sharper at f2.8 than the old one, has very fast auto focus and image stabilization, so it would be a good lens for portraits.
But since I never shoot wide open or hand held, I returned the lens.
If anyone has tested a 100mm lens that is sharper than the old Canon 100mm macro, please let me know.
This may seem a obvious question, but when you did the test did you turn off IS when using this on a tripod? I know that if I have IS turned on with my other lenses and use it on a tripod the images come out less sharp.
-
Unless you need af, look at the zeiss 100mm macro.
-
I did turn off IS when testing the new 100 macro, and did use live view instead of the angle viewfinder for focus.
I not only looked at the results at 100% on the screen, but my assistant did as well. Neither one of us could see any improvement with the new lens in terms of resolution, micro-contrast or color. Believe me, we tried.
In the past I tested the new Zeiss ZF 100 macro (I use Zeiss ZF lenses from 21mm to the 50 macro) against my copy of the Canon 100 macro and the Zeiss also did not test any better.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the new Canon 100 macro--it just does not test any better than the old model.
For someone who needs fast focus, weather sealing or IS, it might be a good deal.
-
Assuming your test were accurate then Canon put an already good lens formula into a better package with improved focus and image stabilization. That comes as no surprise. The disappointment is that they also put the the L series designation on it and bumped the price up by 50%.
-
I did turn off IS when testing the new 100 macro, and did use live view instead of the angle viewfinder for focus.
I not only looked at the results at 100% on the screen, but my assistant did as well. Neither one of us could see any improvement with the new lens in terms of resolution, micro-contrast or color. Believe me, we tried.
In the past I tested the new Zeiss ZF 100 macro (I use Zeiss ZF lenses from 21mm to the 50 macro) against my copy of the Canon 100 macro and the Zeiss also did not test any better.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the new Canon 100 macro--it just does not test any better than the old model.
For someone who needs fast focus, weather sealing or IS, it might be a good deal.
Well, then basically you rigged the test and hamstrung the new L lens so that it could only be matched within the comfortable limitations of the elder lens.
The original 100mm lens was already superb in IQ, contrast, and color ... but it had a cheap feel, no weather-sealing, no IS, and a slower focus. If you turn off the brand-new-generation IS of the newer model, strap it to a tripod, and take your photo 'test' under perfect conditions that benefit the old model, then you are basically taking away all of the advantages of the newer model, which is ridiculous.
Try your test in a moderate rain, chasing a rare frog in the jungle after spending $4,500 on a trip to Peru ... and then tell us which lens gave you more "keepers" being used in an actual macro session in an ever-changing set of field conditions ... and then you might revaluate the "worth" of both lenses and understand the true value of the newer model better.
Jack
.
-
Try your test in a moderate rain, chasing a rare frog in the jungle after spending $4,500 on a trip to Peru ... and then tell us which lens gave you more "keepers" being used in an actual macro session in an ever-changing set of field conditions ... and then you might revaluate the "worth" of both lenses and understand the true value of the newer model better.
Jack
.
Please elaborate on your experience with this lens in the scenario you describe. I'm sure we'd all love to see some of the images you shot as well.
-
Please elaborate on your experience with this lens in the scenario you describe. I'm sure we'd all love to see some of the images you shot as well.
I think the point of his post was rather obvious, whether or not the shooting situation he described was real or theoretical.
Many of us use a macro lens for other than controlled tripod mounted macro work ... a situation where both lenses will perform similarly. For some who have this lens in the field and are trying to use it on challenging and non stationary subject, the addition of IS and better weather sealing are welcome changes and probably see the value of the upgrade differently than those in the first category.
-
I would make 3 comments on this new lens and this thread:
- the thread reminded me to again read the "when is enough enough?" essay Michael did earlier this year
- having the same IQ with the additional glass elements needed for the IS function is already an achievement in itself
- both the weathersealing as well as the IS can be real assets when you exit a controlled environment and might get you shots you otherwise would not be able to get.
-
Please elaborate on your experience with this lens in the scenario you describe. I'm sure we'd all love to see some of the images you shot as well.
Where did I indicate any experience with this new lens? I indicated that the offered test was ridiculous, precisely because it took away all of the advantages of the 'L' model and only compared what the elder 100mm lens already excelled at, which was resolution and image quality. I merely suggested a true test be done that augmented the improved advantages of the newer lens, whicn (I would bet a large sum) totally eclipse the elder lens.
No one has ever questioned the IQ and overall image quality that the elder 100mm lens had. How can you 'excel' one of Canon's absolute best lenses in these areas?
Where the new lens intends to trump the elder is in a far superior build quality, better weather-sealing, faster focus, and a brand new IS system that will allow a person to KEEP more hand-held shots ... and, yes, this *is* worth the extra gravy to obtain, to anyone taking macro shots out in nature, not using a tripod in-studio.
I hope this clarifies,
Jack
.
-
If you're only testing the glass, then you're only testing the GLASS. In this test, the OP doesn't care about IS or shooting situations.
However, it sounds disappointing because Canon says this: "In its latest incarnation, the '100 Macro' joins Canon's esteemed 'L'-series, and as such is held to a higher level of resolving power..."
"Higher level of resolving power."
So much for that, but it has IS, maybe less CA, better bokeh/color, fast focusing, better build quality etc. That's what makes an "L" lens, not so much it's advantage of optical quality over the cheaper versions (the 50 1.2L is NOT sharper than the cheap 50 f/1.4 at f/2.8 and smaller, and the f/1.0L is even worse... and super expensive).
I think the Leica 100mm APO is still the best because of it's lack of CA, and consistency throughout all apertures, despite not being able to go to 1:1.
-
Try your test in a moderate rain, chasing a rare frog in the jungle after spending $4,500 on a trip to Peru ... and then tell us which lens gave you more "keepers" being used in an actual macro session in an ever-changing set of field conditions ... and then you might revaluate the "worth" of both lenses and understand the true value of the newer model better.
All the mentioned lenses will survive light to moderate rain if protected correctly. I use small 'Speedo' swimming towel above camera to protect from rain without creating condensation inside cover. I have been using this method a lot with 5DMKII, EF 50/2.5 Macro and EF 100/2.8 Macro.
If you go to jungle in rainy season and are going to overnight there, then that is a different story for ALL of photography gear you own (excluding scuba gear). I also own 'weather-sealed' combinations like 1DMKIII + EF 500/4L, but could see their sealing only marginally better than normal gear because there is no protection against condensation, also I would even not recommend their use in moderate rain for longer times.
-
Where did I indicate any experience with this new lens? I indicated that the offered test was ridiculous, precisely because it took away all of the advantages of the 'L' model and only compared what the elder 100mm lens already excelled at, which was resolution and image quality. I merely suggested a true test be done that augmented the improved advantages of the newer lens, whicn (I would bet a large sum) totally eclipse the elder lens.
No one has ever questioned the IQ and overall image quality that the elder 100mm lens had. How can you 'excel' one of Canon's absolute best lenses in these areas?
The original poster's concern related to the MTF plots, not the IS and weather sealing. If you check the MTF plots that he linked to (which you did didn't you), then you will see that the new lens is supposedly better. But, they are calculated ones, not measured, and we do not know how closely they can realise the plots. Secondly, as mentioned, sample variation exists.
Photozone has tested one sample of the new lens and the results at the centre of the frame are consistent with high resolving power. Not so stellar off axis though still very good. By all accounts the old lens was optically excellent. Frankly I would not worry unless I was using a >12MP sensor. Oh, that is what the OP is using.
It is of course possible that the OP has picked a cherry from the old lenses, and/or a not so good one from the new.
-
In the past I tested the new Zeiss ZF 100 macro (I use Zeiss ZF lenses from 21mm to the 50 macro) against my copy of the Canon 100 macro and the Zeiss also did not test any better.
I would suggest that the main difference between the 100mm lenses would be in the coating of the optics.
Usually flare is a weak point. Sharpness is usually excellent.
I have a 85mm 1,8 Nikkor and a 2,8 85mm PCE Nikkor with nanocoating- both very sharp- but the PCE has a much better coating/resistance to flare..
-
The original poster's concern related to the MTF plots, not the IS and weather sealing. If you check the MTF plots that he linked to (which you did didn't you), then you will see that the new lens is supposedly better. But, they are calculated ones, not measured, and we do not know how closely they can realise the plots. Secondly, as mentioned, sample variation exists.
Yes, I did check the plots, and long before this post existed actually. Yet, even then, my main interest was not really in the MTF plots but in the improved real-world functionality versus the elder model. I likewise realize there could have been sample variations, but really this kind of "unseen equation" can possibly exist in any face-off, so that just is part of the deal.
Still, I do not believe this has anything to do with the point. The point is, the image quality and sharpness were never issues with the elder lens ... thus to offer comparisons here really isn't the central way to appreciate what are going to be the biggest potential advantages of the newer model.
Assuming the MTF performance was identical (whether it's supposed to be or not), what you still would have in the newer model is a super-sharp lens that delivers excellent image quality ... with some added advantages that the elder model does not.
Photozone has tested one sample of the new lens and the results at the centre of the frame are consistent with high resolving power. Not so stellar off axis though still very good. By all accounts the old lens was optically excellent. Frankly I would not worry unless I was using a >12MP sensor. Oh, that is what the OP is using.
Thanks for letting me know of the new Photozone tests. What's interesting is Photozone has rated the new 'L' lens higher on the 50D (which is what I have) than on the 5DMkII, both of which have > than 12mp sensors. The test also showed that the MTF resolutions were in fact superior across the board to the elder model, through a broader usable f/stop range, although in their conclusion they say the new lens is "probably not" technically superior to the elder. (Jeeze, guys, how about showing a little more decisiveness, eh?)
I find other aspects of their conclusions to be confusing also. On the one hand, of the upgraded build quality of the new 'L' model, Photozone said "Combined with the seals against dust and moisture (the build quality) is as good as it gets to withstand harsh environmental conditions," and yet in their conclusions section Photozone once again contradict themselves by saying the 'L' lens build quality is only "slightly" better than the old (which elder model they rate as only "decent"), and when the old model had absolutely so sealing at all. This makes no sense.
What also made no sense was that the review stated the new lens has Canon's "proven" IS system, when in fact the upgraded lens has a brand new IS system, which is not yet proven, and which I therefore feel was THE most interesting potential aspect of the brand new 'L' model. Yet the subject of the IS was hardly even touched and what was said was more theoretical than actual field-tested. Overall, I felt that Photozone's 'test' was likewise rather ambiguous (and even self-contradictory) on the most critical elements of the new upgrade.
That being said, the new lens' AF capability was described as "very fast" and the accuracy was "excellent." And, of critical importance to any macrophotography, is the bokeh ... which the reviewer stated was "one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far."
It is of course possible that the OP has picked a cherry from the old lenses, and/or a not so good one from the new.
What I think is the most probable of all is that judging this lens at this point, based on the woefully-inadequate reviews thus far, is a bit premature. Nobody has really analyzed what's new. I would like to see a really competent long-term review be done on this lens, being used in actual field conditions, where the added enhancements can really be put to the test and then compared to the limitations of the elder model.
Jack
.
-
Jack. I was simply making the point that the OP was interested in improved image quality. I don't disagree with much of the content of your posts.
Regarding the Photozone tests, you should note that the old and new lenses were tested on different bodies, and hence you cannot cross compare the results, though you can draw some conclusions, albeit not very precise ones. Regarding the statements on build, I think what they say makes sense. They are saying that the newer lens is slightly better built, but has much better sealing. That makes sense to me, but yes it might sound ambiguous. Just my opinion. Don't take it too seriously. I think you can only really get a feel for a lens by reading several reviews. Scratch that. I think you can only really get a feel for a lens by using it. Imatest MTF curves leave out too much to be anything other than a rough guide. It tells you nothing about performance at infinity, and in the micro range. It tells you nothing about the bokeh. Etc etc. Reviews rave about the Tamron 90mm macro lens. I did not like it. (For example it has an awful MF/AF switch that drove me nuts, as I only use MF, but which reviews do not mention, probably because they do not really use the lens.)
The old Canon lens always had a good reputation. The fact that the OP did not find the Zeiss macro lens sharper is odd. It should also have a different character to the IQ. Each manufacturer tends to choose coatings and glass to achieve an in house 'look'.
-
Jack. I was simply making the point that the OP was interested in improved image quality. I don't disagree with much of the content of your posts.
Regarding the Photozone tests, you should note that the old and new lenses were tested on different bodies, and hence you cannot cross compare the results, though you can draw some conclusions, albeit not very precise ones. Regarding the statements on build, I think what they say makes sense. They are saying that the newer lens is slightly better built, but has much better sealing. That makes sense to me, but yes it might sound ambiguous. Just my opinion. Don't take it too seriously. I think you can only really get a feel for a lens by reading several reviews. Scratch that. I think you can only really get a feel for a lens by using it. Imatest MTF curves leave out too much to be anything other than a rough guide. It tells you nothing about performance at infinity, and in the micro range. It tells you nothing about the bokeh. Etc etc. Reviews rave about the Tamron 90mm macro lens. I did not like it. (For example it has an awful MF/AF switch that drove me nuts, as I only use MF, but which reviews do not mention, probably because they do not really use the lens.)
The old Canon lens always had a good reputation. The fact that the OP did not find the Zeiss macro lens sharper is odd. It should also have a different character to the IQ. Each manufacturer tends to choose coatings and glass to achieve an in house 'look'.
Thanks, Slough, for getting the drift of my original post correct.
I bought the lens only because the MTF curves published by Canon indicated better resolution than the old one (which I have). I didn't buy the lens to shoot frogs in Peru, or hand-held portraits or macros in the rain. I bought it only because Canon's MTF curves promised better resolution than the old one I currently use for landscapes-- always on a tripod, mirror lock-up and cable release. I carefully shot resolution targets in the center and all four corners, as well as landscapes and macros. Neither myself or my assistant could tell the two lenses apart from the resulting images. We are always looking for sharper lenses because when you print 40 x 60 you need all the resolution you can get.
It doesn't mean the new Canon 100mm macro is a bad lens; not at all. But if you are thinking of buying it in the hopes it will be better than an old one you have in your bag, my tests show that it is not worth the upgrade.
On the other hand, if you don't have a 100mm lens, it has a lot going for it.
-
It seems to me that Canon generally concentrates on the bottom line - lenses that will appeal to as wide an audience as possible with a combination of build quality, IQ, and usability that are good value at various price points.
Although higher IQ would be nice, i wonder how much better than the 100M Canon can make lenses in their production volume. The faster focussing, IS, weather sealing will make the L lens useful for a wider variety of uses (which for me will justify the replacement of my 100M) with almost state-of-the-art IQ.
I'll bet Canon made a similar tradeoff decision for internal focusing with the 100M - they could have had better IQ with fewer elements, but internal focusing sure is productive.
What the new L macro hasn't really answered is whether or not Canon can and will make lenses that can keep up with increased sensor resolution.
-
just noticed that Lloyd Chambers -diglloyd.com first L 100 M was bad out of the box, can't read hid up-date until my subscription renewal clears
-
I actually think that Canon did an excellent job with the new lens. Meaning that they have managed to maintain the high optical quality of the 100 macro, while adding a completely new IS system. I would not buy the new lens expecting it to be better than the old one in terms of image quality; I would buy the new lens expecting to benefit from the added flexibility provided by the IS.
I seem to remember that when Nikon introduced their 105 macro lens with VR, there were a few comments suggesting that the image quality was not as good as the older version.
-
just noticed that Lloyd Chambers -diglloyd.com first L 100 M was bad out of the box, can't read hid up-date until my subscription renewal clears
He is waiting to get a new copy before he can complete his review. Initially he was going to compare it againist a Zeiss Macro and Leica APO which would have been rather interesting to see how the Canon faired.
-
My old rotating barrel 100/f2.8 macro finally wore out. CPS returned it. No parts and past the time they service this particular lens. I just got my new 100 L replacement. On small product shots (jewelry) at f8-f16 it seems to be about the same as the old one with less CA. For portraits at f2.8-F4 it is superior and blazingly fast compared to the old one. For me it has become my new "standard" lens on my 1Ds3. It maintains the quality one would expect in ANY 100 macro from a major manufacturer. The other advantages listed by others above only add to the sense that I have a lens that will be with me until I, or it, croak.
Stu
-
... the sense that I have a lens that will be with me until I, or it, croak.
Based on your experience with the older lens I suspect it, or at least Canon's support for it, will croak before you do.
-
Based on your experience with the older lens I suspect it, or at least Canon's support for it, will croak before you do.
Har. Har. I can hope. However, there seems to be a geometric progression with my wearing out as I age unlike my old, trusty 100 macro. Canon's support for this lens was longer than support for parts for some cars I have owned. Every manufacturer has to just cut off support for old products at some point. (Maybe Schneider doesn't but those old, simple & elegant babies just keep on working.)
Stu
-
I played with the new 100 macro lens at the recent PhotoPlus Expo in NYC 2 weeks ago. It's a little bigger than the original 100 macro that I own.
Based on what I hearing, I'm glad that I did not see any compelling reason to upgrade.
However, I would like to see Canon upgrade the 100-400 L IS lens. Mine is 6 years old and it just doesn't seem to cut it with my 1Ds MkIII and 5d MkII bodies.
Cheers.
Bud
-
Every manufacturer has to just cut off support for old products at some point.
If that's what you're expecting you won't be disappointed. Leica still services 40-year-old lenses and the lenses are still worth using.
-
I have the old original 100mm macro which doesn't have USM, so the focus speed is terrible compared to most other lenses, but it is certainly the sharpest Canon lens I own. It's also extremely well built and seems more solid than the lens that replaced it.
In a conversation I had with Canon CPS in the UK they felt the 100mm macro was their jewel in the crown because there was no significant fall off in performance at any point in the aperture range, which coincides with my own findings. When tested on my 1DsII I felt it still had plenty left to offer unlike lenses such as my 28mm that were falling apart at the seams, so it could well be that the real limitation here in both cases is the sensor rather than the lens.
A while back I prepared a short article looking at various lenses and photographed them against a white background resting on a sheet of glass. I knew that the images would only be very small and not terribly important, so I was not as careful as usual about protecting the lens from stray light hitting the front of the lens from the background. The result was very telling, because the initial images done on the 24-105L were completely flare free, but when I needed to photograph the zoom, I put on the 100mm macro and much to my surprise there was suddenly flare. It could well be that the new L series macro has significantly improved performance in dealing with flare in difficult situations if this test is anything to go on.
-
The MTF graphs published by Canon indicate the new lens would be far superior to the old one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...mp;modelid=7400 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7400)
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...p;modelid=19091 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=19091)
Unfortunately, the difference did not show up in my tests.
Ashley
Unfortunately Canon USA have posted the wrong MTF graph on their website for the EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. The data they show is for the earlier non-USM lens (confusingly called the EF100mm f/2.8 Macro) that had an entirely different optical construction.
I have checked this with the original Lens Work book from 1992 and with the my April 2003 second edition of Lens Work III. This mistake has been mentioned on various forums, including I think another post on LL. The USM lens MTF data is much closer to that of the new L lens.
PDFs of Lens Work III including the MTF graphs can be downloaded from Canon Europe - Lens Work III (http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Documents/digital_slr_educational_tools/en/ef_lens_work_iii_en.asp).
Regards
Nigel
-
I received the new Canon 100mm f2.8L II Macro IS last week and spent the weekend testing it against my old Canon 100mm macro with resolution and real world tests.
The MTF graphs published by Canon indicate the new lens would be far superior to the old one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...mp;modelid=7400 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7400)
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...p;modelid=19091 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=19091)
Unfortunately, the difference did not show up in my tests.
On resolution charts in the center and four corners, the lenses were identical. Excellent from f4 to f11, but identical. All shots were taken on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2.
On real world shots of the same landscape scene, also on tripod, mirror lock-up, and cable release on the Canon 5D2, I could not tell any difference between the two at 100%. The new lens was no better in resolution, contrast or color.
The new lens was slightly sharper at f2.8 than the old one, has very fast auto focus and image stabilization, so it would be a good lens for portraits.
But since I never shoot wide open or hand held, I returned the lens.
If anyone has tested a 100mm lens that is sharper than the old Canon 100mm macro, please let me know.
I haven't tried the old 100mm macro alongside the new version, but I have owned both, as well as the 180mm macro and 50mm macro from Canon.
After using the original 100mm macro for about a year I sold it as it just didn't deliver the results I was looking for. I had the same experience with the Canon 50mm macro, which was an even bigger disappointment optically. Maybe I was unlucky with these samples. In the end I settled for using Leica R 60mm 2.8 macro and Leica 100mm Apo 2.8 macro lenses with the Canon 180mm macro. This trio of macro lenses delivered comparable (and exceptionally high) quality from f4 up, and from infinity to half life size. But no IS on any of them, and the hassle of stop-down metering with the Leica lenses.
I've only been using the new Canon 100mm macro IS for a few weeks but so far I'm very impressed. In practical use it's fully the equal of the Leica APO Macro 100mm throughout the aperture range, but without the inconvenience of an adaptor. The old Canon 100m macro was demonstrably not up to the standards of the Leica, but as I said maybe I had a poor sample. The IS system on the new Canon 100mm is outstanding, at 1/100s I can't see any material difference between handheld and tripod mounted, and at speeds of 1/200s or faster I can't see any difference at all. In my opinion this new lens is real evidence of optical progress by Canon, and I'm looking forward to the 30+mpx 1Ds MkIV to really put it through its paces!
-
...
I've only been using the new Canon 100mm macro IS for a few weeks but so far I'm very impressed. ... The IS system on the new Canon 100mm is outstanding, ... and I'm looking forward to the 30+mpx 1Ds MkIV to really put it through its paces!
I totally agree.
My older macro lenses were incredibly sharp, but after a day at the Monterey Aquarium with the new IS 100 macro, I have absolutely no interest in going back. The 5d2 and this optic allow shots that just could not be taken before.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Lloyd Chambers test of second copy now online at diglloyd.com. Better than the first, but still an issue and he's awaiting a 3rd copy.
I have really been looking forward to this lens for better AF which i particularly need underwater.
Looks like another case of Canon of a) early production problems, Canon lens-lens quality variation. Hopefully not a fragile design or one beyond their manufacturing capability.
Strongly suggest any owners of this lens do a thorough test before the end of warranty.
Now, how many copies am i going to have to test? -- or should i just wait?
-
That Zeiss ZF 100mm macro that Diglloyd is using for comparison looks very impressive!
-
Westlake reviewed the Canon 100 macro today...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09111103...macroreview.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09111103canon100macroreview.asp)
-
dpreview has just posted their review with no real issues, but interesting reading but unfortunately no direct comparison to the "old" 100m in IQ or focus speed. disappointed that the macro focus limiter range is so narrow - was hoping it would allow focus to 1 or 1 1/2 m so as to be useful to me underwater
i wonder if they got their test copy from Canon or over-the-counter like Lloyd Chambers
i will be testing my own soon
-
dpreview has just posted their review with no real issues, but interesting reading but unfortunately no direct comparison to the "old" 100m in IQ or focus speed. disappointed that the macro focus limiter range is so narrow - was hoping it would allow focus to 1 or 1 1/2 m so as to be useful to me underwater
i wonder if they got their test copy from Canon or over-the-counter like Lloyd Chambers
i will be testing my own soon
I must have read something you didn't. Of the IQ, the review said,
Crop frame
"Despite not being on its 'native' format, the results are close to the excellent Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm F2 Macro, and clearly better than the older Canon EF 100mm F2.8 USM Macro."
Full frame
"Examine the 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro on its native full-frame format, and the results are nothing short of exceptional. It sets a new benchmark in our studio tests, handily outperforming the Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm F2 Macro. Again it surpasses the EF 100mm F2.8 USM Macro (which itself is excellent); it's sharper and has even lower distortion, at the price of a tiny amount of chromatic aberration and a third of a stop more falloff. Very, very impressive indeed."
Of the image stabilization, the review noted,
"Canon has been making image-stabilized SLR lenses for almost 15 years, and that experience shows. In a hugely impressive result, we see a full 4 stops of stabilization, with similar similar levels of sharpness obtained a 1/8 sec with IS on as at 1/125sec with IS off. This is pretty well state of the art at the time of writing."
-
i stand corrected
dpreview allows comparison of the new and "old" lenses and the new lens has significantly better resolution at all focal lengths on full and crop-frame cameras
-
i obviously need to spend more time with the dpreview presentation
obviously i meant apertures, not focal lengths - and the resolution of the new lens is better only until diffraction becomes significant at f11 for crop frame and f16 for full frame as might be expected
the biggest differences are at larger apertures and away from center
so as strictly a macro lens used at relatively small apertures, there's not much between the two lenses. for other uses, the extra resolution at large apertures and improved sharpness away from center should be noticeable
-
See the test at http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_...2p8_is_usm_c16/ (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/)
Their overall conclusion: "...There's little doubt that, all round, this is one of the very finest lenses we've seen - optically it's superb, and operationally it works very well too, with fast and positive autofocus, and one of the most effective image stabilization systems currently available..."
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
There must be some incredible sample variation with this lens because too many people have criticized the 100L Macro to dismiss out the negative reports out of hand.
That being said, my own copy performs as described by DPReview's test--it's really incredible (and as a shooter who is recently coming back to small format from Schneider glass on Rollei and Zeiss on Hasselblad, that is saying something).
Really, if you aren't satisfied by the results of your lens, I'd definitely recommend taking a look at another copy.
I thought DPReview's review was very good on this lens, particularly where the cited limitation of even Hybrid IS for close-focusing since it does not stabilze sensor-to-subject distance at all (which will vary signficantly for close-range handheld photography).
Don't think of me as a fanboy, 'cuz I'm not--I find the 50/1.2 (considering what you pay) is a mediocre performer, that actually never really gets crazy sharp even at f5.6 or f8... So there's good and not-so-good in every company's lens line up. The 100L lens is one of the good ones!
When you've found a good copy, expect to see a flat field, unusually gorgeous, smooth bokeh, and a high degree of sharpness across the field with this lens, even wide open.
-
>There must be some incredible sample variation ...
It seems to be all to common for most of the manufacturers.
While it's hard to test for all the potential problems, I think a de-centered element are the most common problem I've found, and I always test for it by taking shots at infinity where I have a sharp "horizon" line (nearby mountain tops for me). The un-sharpness on the edges, both when shot horizontally and vertically, should be equal. A de-centered element will often cause one side to be less sharp by a fair margin.
Shooting sharp objects at a distance in to check against other lenses and to check out the relative sharpness at various apertures is also easy.
I've sent back a fair amount of equipment, but the last 2 Canon L lenses have been good samples.
>That being said, my own copy performs as described by DPReview's test--it's really incredible
Mine also seems fine.
As the article and you noted, the IS is not as effective up close as at a distance. For close up, I think 1/250 is still a really good idea. And, as you mentioned, the fore-aft movement is not compensated for by the IS. So, I have out of focus shots fairly often.
> (and as a shooter who is recently coming back to small format from Schneider glass on Rollei and
> Zeiss on Hasselblad, that is saying something).
I'm coming from Rollei SL66 & TLR 2.8 Planar (Zeiss), Bronica RF 645 with Tech Pan, for 16x20 & 22x28 B&W.
>... I find the 50/1.2 (considering what you pay) is a mediocre performer, that actually never
>really gets crazy sharp even at f5.6 or f8...
I had the same experience with the 85 1.2 for the old FD -- love the 85 1.8.
I hope we get IS for other good prime lenses. I think even wide angles would benefit.
IS really is a serious technical advance. It makes me wonder whether Zeiss/Cosina could use the Sony 25 mp chip and chip-based IS for the M mount and all those optics. Combined with the viewfinder based live view we have a lot to look forward to in terms of performance.
> The 100L lens is one of the good ones!
So far I'd have to agree.
(I have a sample shot on my home page.)
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
There must be some incredible sample variation with this lens because too many people have criticized the 100L Macro to dismiss out the negative reports out of hand.
There are actually 3 different levels of potential "variation" that can affect publicized reports on this (or any other) piece of equipment than mere sample variation from the manufacturer. These potential variations amongst publicized product reports include:
1) Variation in competence/dilligence amongst the reviewers;
2) Variation in honesty (i.e., hidden agenda) amongst the reviewers;
3) Variation in quality amongst sample products from the manufacturer that get tested by the reviewers.
There is no real way to tell where the true "variation" is coming from in any given test finding, but there seems to be more uniformity in results amongst actual owners of this lens than there does in the publicized reviews.
Jack
.
-
There are actually 3 different levels of potential "variation" that can affect publicized reports on this (or any other) piece of equipment than mere sample variation from the manufacturer. These potential variations amongst publicized product reports include:
"1) Variation in competence/dilligence amongst the reviewers;"
Both dpreview and PhotoZone should be more than competent.
"2) Variation in honesty (i.e., hidden agenda) amongst the reviewers;"
It's best not to question the integrity of people without evidence. I doubt dpreview and PhotoZone have any agenda. There are though people who are less fussy. Mouse Peterson is renowned as someone who would rave about a turd if it had the Nikon badge on it. "I'll let you in on a secret, this Nikon turd is a real sleeper ..."
"3) Variation in quality amongst sample products from the manufacturer that get tested by the reviewers."
There are a considerable number of people online who complain about Canon quality control. Not many appear to complain about Nikon, or other brands. Maybe this is a case of a lens with large sample variation.
There is another possibility. Lens performance varies not just with aperture, but also with focus distance. It is quite conceivable that dpreview tried the lens at one distance using test targets, whereas other people use it for close ups, and infinity as well. Hence they reach different conclusions.
-
There is another possibility. Lens performance varies not just with aperture, but also with focus distance. It is quite conceivable that dpreview tried the lens at one distance using test targets, whereas other people use it for close ups, and infinity as well. Hence they reach different conclusions.
I wonder about this. Even when the reviewers agree I wonder what I'll see when I shoot it in the field.
-
Which is why the only way to know for certain is simply test a given a lens for your own needs, and if you must do research first, then only read or listen to those whom have actually have done this. The rest is just forum fodder.
-
Which is why the only way to know for certain is simply test a given a lens for your own needs, and if you must do research first, then only read or listen to those whom have actually have done this. The rest is just forum fodder.
Many years ago I heard about a friend of the family who was a semi-pro sports photographer. As he was a trained optical technician, he would collect a handful of new lenses from the local camera shop, test them all, and then return them all apart from the best sample which he bought. I think he shot Nikon. I don't see many shops allowing this.
-
Many years ago I heard about a friend of the family who was a semi-pro sports photographer. As he was a trained optical technician, he would collect a handful of new lenses from the local camera shop, test them all, and then return them all apart from the best sample which he bought. I think he shot Nikon. I don't see many shops allowing this.
Interesting. I did the very same thing when I purchased a new 100 2.8 macro at Best Try last year. However, before I purchased (and to avoid a "restocking fee"), we unboxed the two units they had on the shelf and shot some samples with a tripod. Checked the shots via lightroom on a laptop and I walk out with the best of the two. It was quite educational for the sales reps and a few customers, we had some fun. I use that lens for all my table-top products.
I was just in there yesterday with the wife shopping for a new TV, and spotted a new D7 on the shelf, so I'll have to make it point to go back and do some 'testing' on that one.
In the last few months I've made it a hobby of mine to purchase old vintage lenses from ebay and experiment, (taking them apart, cleaning them up and shooting). Surprisingly, I've found a few gems for pocket change, along with some absolute dogs of course, but certainly more interesting than falling asleep while cruising forums, and that has revived my shooting slump.
My point is, that when I find a lens worth bidding on. I do some research online, and then compare my results with others opinions. Interestingly, my results were mixed. Meaning that there are simply too many factors involved to believe that any particular lens will perform as good, (or as poorly) as anothers own experience. Variances in expectations, usage, (including age for used), and lens quality controls can add up, and you're left with the one and only conclusion. Buy it, and then try it.
-
There are no universal methods and standards for lens testing. as far as i know DXO and Imatest (used by Photozone, dpreview - and myself) are the practical choices for testing of which Imatest is the cheaper and more accessible. Imatest can be used in a wide variety of ways on a wide variety of test targets and can generate a mountain of data which you need to wade thru to reach a reasonably informed conclusion. Needless to say, the ultimate data is influenced by good practice in choice of target, processing of the digital image in-camera or in computer (e.g. sharpening directly affects resolution numbers), choice of target, choice of data sampled, etc. etc. Lots of choices judgements involved just as there are in "subjectively" evaluating comparative images. And hence the caveat from imatest that the numbers generated are not absolute, but of comparing different lenses evaluated under the same conditions. Anyone who's looked at Photozone data vs. dpreview data (or any other) will immediately see that Photozone is reporting numbers which are not comparable to dpreview.
That's the preamble to my testing over the last few days of 2 100 L IS lenses. Since the bottom line is whether or not to replace the 100M, i shot it as well and the 90TS and 200 f2.8 (recentlly returned from Canon service) under the same conditions using the Imatest SFRplus target and Imatest software. And i easily generated a pile of data from which i'm trying to report a sensible abstract.
Micro adjustment for both of the 100 L lenses was -3 on my 5D2 (the 100M and 200 f2.8 were -2). Tests were shot using autofocus (except the TS of course) with liveview as a convenience for framing and mirror lockup with the 2-second timer and IR remote release. I did most testing in direct sun, but confirmed with a second indoor test in diffuse light (with remarkably consistent results). Imatest recommends illumnating the target with lights at 45 degrees - this probably makes some difference to the absolute numbers but it's a nuisance not not related to the way i'll use the lenses.
The bottom line is that there is not much to choose from between the two samples - one is centered slightly to the right, the other to the left (the 90TS with it's big image circle appears to be perfectly centered and the 200m nearly so - the 100M is slighty de-centered) but resolution, distortion, CA are otherwise vitually identical - these are the highest resolution lenses i've tested. At f8, 15% sharper in the center than the 90TS and 100M and 6% sharper than the 200 f2.8. I tested from wide open to f22 (full stop increments) and my results were consistent with dpreview (although my absolute numbers were different). I compared lenses at f8 for the best balance of center and edge performance, but there are no surprises at other apertures. As you stop down to f11 and beyond, diffraction starts to equalize the lenses with the 90 TS holding up slightly better at f16 and f22.
The main "issue" with the 100 L's is CA which unfortunately appears to interact with the Imatest target and software - at least as i'm using it. If my math is correct, CA for both R/C and B/Y is about the same as dpreview shows for R/C. This is about 50% more than the 100M, twice the 200, and 8 times the 90 TS (which doesn's show visible CA at 2:1). The issue with Imatest is that resoluting is measured at as many as 23 vertical and 23 horizontal edges with the SFRplus target. When the Imatest software looks at the vertical edges the measured resolution appears to be limited by the R/C or B/Y fringing on the vertical edges. Looking at the vertical edges 35-45% to left and right of center, resolution is off around 8% -- at 78-85% out resolution is 30% down from center! On the other hand if you look at resolution of the horizontal edges, reslolution is down around 5% 35-45% out and 7% 75-85% out. For comparison the 90 TS shows essentially no resolution difference between horizontal and vertical edges anywhere, the 100M and 200 a few percent at the outer zone. My 100-400 has a bit worse CA than the 100 L -- and a greater difference between Imatest reported resolution of horizontal and vertical edges. Is this an inevitable "feature" of complex optics? And more importantly, how much does it matter unless you're photographing white picket fences against a dark background?
So looking at the resolution of horizontal edges, the 100 L IS is astounding across he image. Measured on the vertical edges, resolution at the left and right is no better or slightly worse than the other lenses. I welcome informed comment on this issue.
Autofocus - One of my main interests in the 100 L IS is improved autofocus. It does not appear to hesitate, hunt, or clunk like the 100M at close focusing distances, but it will take some experience to verify how much quicker it is overall.
Quirks and quibbles - The front element of the 100 L appears to be exactly the same diameter as the "old" lens even though filter mount has gone up to 67mm (styling? manufacturing economy?) so it looks like a reducer ring needs to be more or less permanently in place to take my 62mm 500D, polarizer, and macro lite adapter.
With the exception of CA, the 100L is a better and generally more useful lens and i'll replace the "old" lens. For macro shooting stationary subjects alone it would be hard to justify, but then i'd rather use the 90TS with liveview on a tripod for those subjects anyhow.
-
"Autofocus - One of my main interests in the 100 L IS is improved autofocus. It does not appear to hesitate, hunt, or clunk like the 100M at close focusing distances, but it will take some experience to verify how much quicker it is overall."
That's the point. It depends on what you intend to use the lens for. I'm not replacing my 100mm as I use it for studio, and prints from it are sharp enough, and that any nuance or slight different will be lost in the process. Frankly, at f8 with studio flash, there are a multitude of lenses, vintage included, that will render sharp enough for prints that reach the limits of my sensor. 80% of what I publish is digital and online anyway, and even so, designers have little issue with using 100% crops of my shots as brochure insets or call outs without having me to re-shoot.
In fact, I've tested some old FD lenses via an optical adaptor and compared them directly to their EF counterparts, and aside from a stop of light and the extended magnification, they are completely useful for my needs. If you don't believe me, go here: http://ferling.net/galleries/StudioEFvsFD/index.html (http://ferling.net/galleries/StudioEFvsFD/index.html)
Granted, in the field, with available light, the IS alone would be reason enough to upgrade, and I would not be too concerned if the results were no sharper than my non-IS, non-L version, because that's not the point. The point of IS is to regain some resolution that you would have lost while moving about. We look at numbers and charts to understand the 'possible' resolution a lens will have. But we don't have those numbers or a chart that represents the ultimate degradation of that 'possible' resolution our when usage deviates from the test bench. To say that a given lens is no sharper than another is a true statement, but only for that very particular lens. If you could have 100 samples at your disposal to choose from, then you might have a more accurate answer.
-
... in the field, with available light, the IS alone would be reason enough to upgrade,...
Yes, and I'm very happy with my new 100 IS L. It's excellent even at wide aperatures.
However, just out of curiousity, I put my Nikon doublet (corrected, 2-lens) closeup lens on my 90 TS to see how they'd compare at about a 10" distance. At f/11 they are the same aside from the macro having a flatter field. In casual flower shots, they are the same. Given the importance of correct focus and the tilt, I'll actually be using my 90 TS with a closeup lens for some uses.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Over the last week I've had a project that required me to shoot with both my previous generation Canon 100 Macro and the Canon 180 L Macro. The difference is significant on a full frame camera. The 180 makes anything from the 100 look soft by comparison.
It's seems reasonable to conclude that though a completely different optical formula, and focal length, Canon could easily improve the 100 by simply introducing improved glass. Add in IS and the potential for improved image increases.
What's unfortunate is that Canon's QC, or lack there of, has apparently allowed huge variation in what gets shipped to the consumer. You would think in introducing a new L lens they'd be all over QC. But then you'd also think easy mirror lockup on a new body would be a priority by now.
-
obviously i meant apertures, not focal lengths - and the resolution of the new lens is better only until diffraction becomes significant at f11 for crop frame and f16 for full frame as might be expected
the biggest differences are at larger apertures and away from center
As I understand it, diffraction is a fundamental physical limitation that cannot be overcome by improved optical design, so it's only to be expected that the performance of different lenses tends to equalize as you stop down.
-
I have taken few shots in a two Monoblock set up with my 1D III and EF 100mm f/2.8L IS just to test shooting HSS with Profoto compact 600's with TT1/TT5 combination, and I have found the lens to be impressive.
I also, as I have said in an other thread, notice more and more copy variations in Canon's lenses lately, not very good unfortunately, but testing is required, as we can't expect all lenses to be the same, unfortunately! :-(
Here is one of the shots, please note that nothing was done to the pic, and it was a test for the HSS.