Even though I am a Canon nut, I have never used that lens. I think 100mm would not be my choice for a macro lens but if the price is low enough it'll work pretty good.
Please fell free to respond to the OP and correct any misconceptions I might have.
If only I could eliminate all the numbers from photography then I'd be an expert. ADHD
<< <i>There is no such thing as a "bad" macro lens. >>
Heck YEAH there are. But I think you are referring to the current mainstream offerings in which case you are almost totally correct.
The point is, never say never.
Heck, at one time I would have NEVER imaged SERIOUSLY owning a coin older than 1986, and certainly no coins without silver or gold content.
Look at me know! I have old coins that I have no clue what they are but since I like a little color with my old coins it works for me.
After a while, I have to admit, some of those old crap coins aren't so crappy after all. It might just be all the bigots that collected them while snobbishly crapping on even the 20th century classics. But even that seems to be fading as economics and scarcity make rare coins even more interesting and in many cases, invisible.
Here are some shots that I have taken with my Canon 40D and 100mm . I don't have any kind of special lighting and primarily just use daylight and a tripod.
I use the Cannon 100 Macro all the time, A fantastic lens. You will like it. I own 3 Cannon macro lenses and use the 100 mm the most for coin photography.
I use the 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens with a Canon Rebel XSi. A few representative pictures are shown below. I picked up a used lens on eBay and saved several hundred dollars compared to a new lens -- one doesn't need the latest ultrasonic autofocus motor technology, since most focusing will be done manually. As other coin imagers on these boards have pointed out, the longer working distance of a 150 or 180 mm macro lens provides more room for nearer-to-90 degree lighting, so a longer focal length lens is on my wish list.
<< <i>Unless this will also double as a portrait lens I doubt you'll ever shoot at f/2.8 anyway. >>
The main advantage of f/2.8 is that of focusing. You get a brighter viewfinder and a narrower depth of field - easier to focus. Macro pictures taken at f/2.8 are generally not so hot.
Comments
Please fell free to respond to the OP and correct any misconceptions I might have.
If only I could eliminate all the numbers from photography then I'd be an expert. ADHD
What body are we talking about?
<< <i>There is no such thing as a "bad" macro lens. >>
Heck YEAH there are. But I think you are referring to the current mainstream offerings in which case you are almost totally correct.
The point is, never say never.
Heck, at one time I would have NEVER imaged SERIOUSLY owning a coin older than 1986, and certainly no coins without silver or gold content.
Look at me know! I have old coins that I have no clue what they are but since I like a little color with my old coins it works for me.
After a while, I have to admit, some of those old crap coins aren't so crappy after all. It might just be all the bigots that collected them while snobbishly crapping on even the 20th century classics. But even that seems to be fading as economics and scarcity make rare coins even more interesting and in many cases, invisible.
You'd also be well off just typing "Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro" in a Goggle "Image" search and seeing some close-up images taken with this lens.
I wouldn't get too sucked in on needing a fast Macro lens as your shooting an inanimate subject.
Unless this will also double as a portrait lens I doubt you'll ever shoot at f/2.8 anyway.
Thanks for your help Carl
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>Unless this will also double as a portrait lens I doubt you'll ever shoot at f/2.8 anyway. >>
The main advantage of f/2.8 is that of focusing. You get a brighter viewfinder and a narrower depth of field - easier to focus. Macro pictures taken at f/2.8 are generally not so hot.