Canon 100mn or Canon 70-300mm?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dextor143, Jan 14, 2010.

  1. Dextor143 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    I am looking to add lenses to my collection and will like to know which one of these would be good for longer run.

    I do know that one is prime and the other is fixed but someone told me that I can always use extension tubes to take macro photography if I know how to do manual focus which I know.

    can you please tell me if you would have to pick any one of these two which one would u pick?

    I do like to do some macro photography as well as telephoto.

    Thanks
     
  2. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #2
    Almost any prime will be significantly sharper than almost any zoom lens. I know this might kick your budget in the nuts, but have you considered the 180mm Macro? It is obviously an amazing macro lens, but it's also a stellar prime telephoto lens.

    Otherwise, having owned the 70-300mm lens myself, I would jump all over the 100mm macro!
     
  3. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #3
    definitely the macro... its just plain WOW... and you get a medium telephoto, a great portrait lens AND a macro 1:1 lens... its hands down one of Canons best bang for buck lenses...

    //F
     
  4. Dextor143 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    So you guys think macro will be the better choice....Can someone give me good reason to support that?

    thanks for your reply
     
  5. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #5
    ...We just did. You get phenomenal photos more easily, and you can do 1:1.
     
  6. jampat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    #6
    The 70-300 gives you a mediocre telephot lens that is really dark on the long end (read as annoying to use and likely to live in your bag). The 100 mm macro has better sharpness and contrast, can be used for 1:1. If you want 10x more reasons, search for 70-300 on mroogle. There are some very active threads trying to convince people not to waste their money on the 70-300 (primarily because the 70-200's are so much better and start around the same price).

    For my money, I would intentionally avoid owning a 70-300 while I plan on picking up a macro (100 or 180) at some point in the future.
     
  7. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #7
    The 70-300 is good as superzooms go, but the 100mm is simply a superb lens. Actually, there are two of these, and they're both optically outstanding. If you expect to be doing any telephoto stuff without a tripod, you'll benefit from the IS (i.e. the "L") version of the 100mm. It's even quite effective for macro work, although then there really is no substitute for using a tripod. Either 100mm will be a lot more versatile (and a lot more fun) than a superzoom.
     
  8. Dextor143 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    Can you explain little bit about 1:1 ......I am sorry for being a newbie..
     
  9. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #9
  10. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #10
    100 mm IS or non IS?

    I have the IS version, and its a shocking clear lens. When I look at The Digital Picture, the only other lens that comes close to it at 2.8 in the telephoto range is the 200 mm 2.0 (5,000$) and the 300 mm 2.8 (4,300$).

    Just an awesome lens.
     
  11. Dextor143 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #11
    100mm non IS....I can only afford less than $600
     
  12. Dextor143 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Location:
    USA
  13. Dextor143 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    how good is canon 100mm for far objects? since I wont be able to zoom in?
     
  14. al256 macrumors 6502a

    al256

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    #14
    He's more or less right. These are my two best photos taken with the 70-300:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Not too bad but honestly, I would have been much more happier with a macro lens for both macros and portraits. But I don't regret owning this lens either.
     
  15. Dextor143 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    These looks beautiful, how good can you get with 100mm?
     
  16. yetanotherdave macrumors 68000

    yetanotherdave

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Location:
    Bristol, England
  17. funkboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Location:
    elsewhere
    #17
    Maybe. It depends on which categories are important to you. The 180mm is razor sharp, but as it's a huge macro lens with very large glass elements the autofocus is very slow (by Canon USM standards). It's also a bit of a beast to drag around with you, and it doesn't have IS. If you're using it for landscapes or something else that you'd normally use a tripod for, then it's great.

    I question its usefulness as a general telephoto for the same reason that I sold my non-IS 70-200 f/4L: you didn't mention what kind of camera you have, but at 180mm on a lower-resolution APS-C camera you're going need at least 1/300 sec for a really stable handheld shot, and if you've got something resolution-hungry like a 7D it's going to be more like 1/400 or more (my hand isn't the steadiest in the world, but I try to keep my 135mm f/2L above 1/300 on my 40D if I want to be really sure it's going to be clean. f/2 makes it much easier :).

    I think at this point you need to think long and hard about whether you want a telephoto that can do some macro, or a macro that can do some telephoto. Personally, I'd go for the first option as I travel a lot so a good telephoto is important to me, and for macro I always carry a little Kenko macro ring with me that works well on just about any mid-telephoto lens, especially ones with IS (you can find them cheap at B&H photo).

    BTW another good macro option is the EF-S 60mm (if you've got a crop camera of course). It's rumored that Canon will be bringing out an IS version soon. photozone.de's review of it was very favorable and it's not terribly expensive.

    Regarding the telephoto zoom, someone asked a question very similar to yours yesterday; see the "Canon Telephoto Zoom" thread for my comments on what's available.
     
  18. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #18
    The 100mm is a great lens, but I found the novelty of shooting macro eventually wears off (mainly cos I can't be bothered with setting up a tripod to use it). In terms of flexiblity the 70-300 would offer you more (quality is fine, just not as good as the 100mm), you could look at the 70-200 f/4. I bought my 70-200 at the same time as the macro and sadly the 100 is my least used lens.

    If you do go for the 100mm you might find a lot a cheaper deals soon as the replacement version (with IS) is coming out.
     
  19. Dextor143 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    I HAVE CANON 450D
     
  20. MacCanon macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    #20
    macro vs telephoto

    (fixed and prime are the same thing)
    but as for which one to get, its all about what u r gonna use it for
    i have the 70-300mm and a 18-55mm to start off and i love both of them for different things,
    macro's deliver superior quality with a much higher price, usually starting at about 1k, used would be alright in most cases with a reliable store.

    its all about what u need it for
     

Share This Page