Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro (Non-USM Model)

[rpcrowe]

I didn't know that Canon produced a version of the 100mm f/2.8 Macro that doesn't have a USM motor. I thought that there were only two versions of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS and Non-IS wit both being USM.

I purchased a lens which was advertised as a 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. And didn't even realize that it was the arc-form drive version which was introduced before Canon introduced the USM macro lens.

I began my investigation when a tripod ring I purchased for this lens and the lens hood didn't fit.

The lens I received has AFD rather than USM. It's the same AFD (arc-form drive) motor that works just fine on my 50/1.8 MkI and a small number of other old designs. But on the macro lens with its heavier optics and much greater focus travel it is very slow and noisy. The front element also extends when I focus. It is old technology...

I thought that it was my error and I would have to bite the bullet but, I looked back at the eBay ad and saw that the lens was advertised as a USM version. I just sent an email to the seller stating that the lens was not as described and telling him that I want to return it. I paid for the lens with PayPal.

[William W]

Probably good you return it. I think the spare parts ended a long time ago and the USM version is sharper.

[rpcrowe]

Like I said, I am happy that this lens is not as advertised. I didn't want one as old as this one probably is. It seems sharp enough but the AFD is noisy and seems cranky.

[DanK]

According to Wikipedia, that lens was introduced in 1990, and the USM, which was presumably its replacement, was introduced in 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_100mm_lens

I have the L, but from what I have read, the USM is optically very similar to the L. A good used copy of that one, if you can find it, should be a reasonable option.

[rpcrowe]

According to Wikipedia, that lens was introduced in 1990, and the USM, which was presumably its replacement, was introduced in 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_100mm_lens

I have the L, but from what I have read, the USM is optically very similar to the L. A good used copy of that one, if you can find it, should be a reasonable option.

That is what I "thought" I was purchasing. If fact, I didn't realize at first that this was not the lens I wanted. Then, I didn't realize that the non-USM lens was the one I got until, I purchased a lens hood and a tripod ring for the non-L USM lens and it didn't fit the lens that I had bought. I was kicking myself that I didn't read the eBay posting closely enough until I went back to eBay and re-read the description which plainly says USM. It could be that the seller didn't know that there was a non-USM Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens floating around. I DIDN'T

The seller could say, "Sorry about that, you had the lens too long to return it!" Then I will sell this lens on eBay and purchase a non-L 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Looking at and working with this lens, I realized that the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro is almost an exact copy of the earlier Canon non-USM 100mm lens....

[rpcrowe]

I just received a shipping label to return the lens for a refund. I am quite satisfied with that seller's integrity.

I found a used Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM (non-IS) Macro lens which I have purchased.

My 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens with an extension tube also does a pretty neat job as a close-up lens but, the 100mm macro is easier to handle...

[rpcrowe]

I returned this lens for a $250 USD refund and I purchased a USM model in great condition for $306 USD including shipping. The extra $56 USD is well worth it. This is a far nicer lens all around.
As a bonus, I can use the USM lens hood and tripod collar that I purchased earlier.

[koldvette]

Thank you gents for your info! I was about to buy a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro but was the AFD version.

[Tronhard]

I have had the 100mm f2.8 USM non-L version for quite a few years and not actually used it for macro work. The other day had dawned clear but with quite a heavy dew so I ventured forth with the lens on the first body I put my hand on - in this case the EOS 650D. Tripod mounted (just on the camera body) I placed it between the leaves of one of my partner's plants and tried to capture some dew drops as lenses.

So this is officially my first macro photo and to my untutored eye it doesn't look too bad considering I didn't spend huge efforts on the setup.


EOS 650D, f16, 1/40sec, ISO-400

[DanK]

nice raindrops!

I would want the USM version in part because all USM lenses have full-time manual focusing.

[rpcrowe]

There are several ways in which the USM version of this lens is better than the original non-USM version. Internal focusing is one of the factors. The original version extended when focusing, much like the 90mm Tamron f/2.8. The auto focusing is also much slower with the non-USM lens. I normally use manual focusing for macro but, sometimes I want to use the lens for other than macro work. I "think" that the IQ of the USM version is better than that of the non-USM macro lens.

The USM Non-L Macro lens doesn't seem to AF at all on my Sony A6500 or A6400 cameras with either the Sigma MC-11 or Metabones IV adapter. I am under the impression that older canon glass doesn't adapt well to the Sony e-mount. However, I shoot with both Sony and Canon cameras so the interface of this lens with the Sony is really no problem. For the minimal actual macro work I do, the USM, non-L version is just fine... If I need macro with the Sony cameras, I have a set of extension tubes.

I also have a really ancient M-42 bellows, along with a couple of enlarging lenses, which adapts to the Sony cameras I haven't done much work with this setup due to recent health problems...

[Cantab]

Trev, to my eye, this is a very effective photo. I love the "stars" on two of the drops. Was that how they appeared prior to pp or are they the result of creative editing?

For what it's worth, I keep changing my mind about the cobweb thread with tiny drops of dew on it. On balance I think it may be a distraction from the real showpiece; on the other hand, I can see that it adds an environmental component to the image. Did you consider editing it out?

[Tronhard]

Hi Bruce:

Really apart from cropping and some AA correction this is pretty much as captured. Thus the stars were there and I frankly wouldn't know how to put them in !

I left the spider's web in, because it was there, but more significantly because the spider appeared to have built the thread to the actual drop - considering the delicate nature of a water droplet I thought that was remarkable. I looked carefully to make sure it wasn't the leaf behind, but no... it was the drop. So, of course I was intrigued and puzzled, and I left that there to see if it would trigger the same reaction in other viewers.

[Ken MT]

From Wikipedia not Canon lens museum, I also didn't know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_100mm_lens

[Cantab]

I left the spider's web in, because it was there, but more significantly because the spider appeared to have built the thread to the actual drop - considering the delicate nature of a water droplet I thought that was remarkable. I looked carefully to make sure it wasn't the leaf behind, but no... it was the drop. So, of course I was intrigued and puzzled, and I left that there to see if it would trigger the same reaction in other viewers.

Hi Trev, Wow! I had a closer look at the spider thread with the image enlarged to full size in lytebox. The spider somehow attached the thread to the drop of water. But where did the spider then go? Presumably back down the thread to wherever.

And of course there's the question of how the spider reached the drop in the first place. I've often seen single horizontal threads of several feet which presumably occur because the thread gets blown sideways. Perhaps that's what happened here.

In any event, an intriguing and attractive image!

[Tronhard]

Hi Bruce:

I am actually wondering if the spider's thread was on the leaf when it was damp, and was washed down by the dew and then became attached to the water droplet's meniscus. Even a simple drop can hold world of intrigue...