Hi ppl,

just bought my first DSLR, Canon 400D + kit lens. but found the kit lens is not sharp when focused. so been meaning to get the EF 100mm Macro Lens, but the price is abit steep.

so anyone owning this lens? and mind sharing some comments on this lens. i'm planning to use this lens as an all purpose lens, Macro/Portraits/Infinity usage.

is it sharp when taking picture from Macro to infinity?? like crystal sharp?? if it's possible can anyone share some of your photo taken with this lens??

i've done abit of research on this lens on a few sites, but most of the reviews only focus on Macro Mode, i want to know how well it performs when taking landscape photos.

Pls Comment, TQ.

inkle.
New 400D Proud Owner

The 100mm f/2.8 macro is very good, in both macro and conventional shooting. However it is also quite long on your 400D for general shooting.

If you plan to shoot a lot of macro, then I'd recommend it. If you plan to do more portraits, landscapes and general shooting than macro, perhaps starting out with a 50mm f/1.8 lens would be more useable. The 50mm is a great portrait focal length on a 1.6 camera, and is as sharp as anything from f/5.6 on up. Besides, it's only $75.

If you want to improve the sharpness of your photos - technique can help just as much or more than a new lens. Make sure you are doing the following before deciding that your kit lens isn't sharp enough.

1) Use a sturdy tripod.
2) Use both the self timer and mirror lock up to trip the shutter.
3) Carefully focus (use manual mode if you need to) making sure to note that the area of visible sharp focus (DOF) is both in front of and behind where you actually focus. In other words, don't focus at infinity if you want both near and far items in focus.
4) Stop the lens down to f/8 or f/11.
5) Do some post processing on the image file. A little sharpening, color, and contrast adjustment can go a long way in making an image look good.

If the kit lens still doesn't meet your standards, then look at other lens options. The 50mm f/1.8 is so cheap and good that there's no reason not to buy it, even if you do get the 100mm Macro. If you want just one lens to do macro plus general shooting and are working with a tight budget, try finding a used 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. It will do both macro as well as being a phenomenally sharp general purpose lens and can usually be found for $225-$250.

Given the 1.6x crop factor of the 400D you may find the 160mm effective focal length a bit long for many subjects, but it is of course great for macro and good for portraits. The kit lens with the 400D is not a brilliant lens and I rapidly replaced it with the EF-S 17 - 85 f4 - 5.6 IS lens as my standard (effectively 27mm to 136mm). It's not quite as sharp or as fast as the 100mm f2.8, nor is it a macro lens but does cover a wide range of focal lengths, has IS and is about the same price.

Another alternative would be the EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro - less expensive than the 100mm and effectively a 96mm lens on your 400D. I have never used one so I cannot comment from personal experience, but reviews have been good.

The 100mm f2.8 lens is a truly great lens. For macro it is formidable. It is very sharp at infinity but I rarely use it for landscape preferring other lenses for such work.

I would strongly recommend you ask yourself what photography work you will do before deciding on a lens. If lots of macro and portraits but little landscape then the 100mm or 60mm would be a good choice. If mostly portrait then suggest a 50mm f1.8 lens (which is a quarter of the price of the 100mm). If mostly portrait and landscape then suggest a 17-85mm.

Also worth checking the Sigma or Tamron lenses.

Pete

I use both 100mm usm macro and 60mm EFS (+ a 12mm extension tube) on FF Canon Digitals. Nether will disappoint as both produce superb results - I've tried a 60 EFS at infinity on a 400D and it was excellent here too. I'd rate the 100 as being a very good performer indeed (well up to 'L' standard) and the 60EFS as being as good in the region I use it (as a 'tue' macro lens (greater than 1:1 to about 40cm. IMHO both are excellent value.

Hi,
The 100mm Canon f2.8 macro is an awesome lens. I've been using it for around a year now on a 20D and a EOS 1Ds MkII and the quality is superb. Super sharp from centre to corners and on your 400D will give you a 160mm macro.

I use it both on macro work and at long distances, It is excellent for Landscapes. I also use it on portraits but I've found that it can be a bit too sharp for this purpose.

You can see some of my shots up close and at a distance at
chrisjohnstonphotography.com

Thank You all for your guidance & info,

Now i really do have to ask myself more thoroughly on which kind of photo do i take the most. one thing i havent consider is the size of the lens itself, so i have to re-think on that as well.

i've tried out the 50mm & 60mm lens at my local shop, both lens still doesnt perform the macro that i'm looking for. thats why i was considering on the 100mm. i've done alot of research online on the 100mm lens, and i've seen the sample photos, & based on this, the lens is definitely a winner.

but i will factor in the pointers you all have given me for consideration.

inkle.