Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro USM
11. Summary
- excellent image quality in the frame centre and at the frame edge at all apertures,
- negligible chromatic aberration,
- distortion at practically zero level,
- very low coma,
- moderate astigmatism,
- silent and relatively quick autofocus,
- good build quality.
Cons:
- autofocus could have been more accurate.
I like testing such lenses very much. The test procedures and the results analysis go smoothly and efficiently. I don’t have to think what went wrong and why, describe all slip-ups in detail, find arguments why a lens is overpriced. Here everything went almost perfectly. For the sum of about 640 $ we get a well-made instrument with excellent optical and mechanical properties which is ideal for macro photography and portraits as well.
Please Support UsIf you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It didn’t break any records like the Tamron 2.8/90 Macro but it fared much better by f/2.8 and f/4.0 and had a significantly lower chromatic aberration than that lens. The Tamron is cheaper but it has neither inner focusing nor an USM motor. The Sigma 2.8/105 Macro is a similar case. It is not equipped with an ultrasonic autofocus and it changes its dimensions on focusing, its image quality is very good and the chromatic aberration – low. It is also cheaper than the Canon. As you see, in the 90-105 mm macro class the choice is wide – each and every of these three lenses can make even a demanding user satisfied with the results. Which lens you decide to buy is only a matter of your personal tastes and your pocket.
Sample Shots: