Canon 100mm 2.8 macro USM vs. non-USM

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/07/2005 11:01:32 AM · #1

I just got a bonus payment from an invention -- so naturally I am looking on spending the money on lenses right away. I would like to add a macro lens to my lineup, and I have heard good things about the tamron 90mm, the sigma 105mm, and the canon 100mm. I have made good experiences with canon lenses (and their warranty/service), and thus I'd like to stick with them.

The question is whether to get a used 100mm 2.8 USM or a new non-USM version. Difference is about $100-150. Does anyone have any opinion on this?

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/07/2005 12:06:29 PM · #2

USM focuses a lot faster. That could be the difference in getting or missing a lot of great bug macros.

I used the 100mm with USM yesterday for the first time. I love that lens!

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/07/2005 12:27:47 PM · #3

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro USM is one of my favorite lenses in my bag. It's clear, sharp, fast - and an all around great lens. I read a lot of reviews before buying it because I was also considering the Sigma 105mm, but I found too many people saying they got a bad one and had to exchange it. Those that got a good one liked it. I know plenty of people on this site have the Sigma 105mm and love it. I am also partial to Canon lenses though so my decision was pretty easily made when I read the reviews of the Sigma. I'm sure they are out there, but I didn't find any negative reviews of the Canon - and I have not regretted purchasing it.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/07/2005 12:34:23 PM · #4

could you guys post some sample pics?

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

08/07/2005 12:43:46 PM · #5

The majority (if not all) of these images were taken with that lens:
Desert Botanical Garden
Desert Botanical Garden
Desert Botanical Garden - The first 3 were taken with the 100mm
Desert Botanical Garden
Cactus Flowers
Spring Desert

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/07/2005 01:35:01 PM · #6

some stunning shots, Tina. Colors, contrast, and bokeh look excellent! How tricky is the focus on your USM version? How long on average does it take to focus during normal use?

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

08/07/2005 01:41:38 PM · #7

Thank you Jan. I truly do love my lens. I honestly don't find the focusing tricky at all. Occasionally I'll move it to Manual focus if I'm working on something especially tight, but the nice thing about that lens is it allows you to manually take over without having to switch to manual focus. On average I would say it finds the focus almost instantly, seconds may be a generous time frame. It really is quick and quiet.

08/07/2005 01:47:30 PM · #8

having heard this about the USM lens, does anyone have an opinion on the non-USM lens?

08/07/2005 04:29:38 PM · #9

bump for sun evening surfers

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

08/07/2005 09:25:00 PM · #10

anyone?

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

08/07/2005 09:31:01 PM · #11

I have the non USM lens and it's just as sharp and built superbly. You don't need a lens hood with it either as the glass retracts inside the body of the lens. AF will most likely NOT be used for macro work, I find that I use MF 99% of the time.

colyla

Canon EOS-50D

08/07/2005 09:33:04 PM · #12

You can look =1]Here and it will show you some pictures from the different ones.....

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/07/2005 09:41:13 PM · #13

thanks kyebosh and colyla. I had a look at the pics previously, I just wondered how the handling of the non-USM compares to the USM-version. I'm leaning towards getting the non-USM and save $150 -- why bother if I'll use manual focus most of the time anyway?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

08/07/2005 10:01:45 PM · #14

Both with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM