Question for you Prime shooters

[crbeveri]

Do yall find yourself using, wishing you had a 100mm f/2.8 prime??

[groovyone]

You know, I have the 100mm 2.8 macro and really never use it outside of macro. I guess I would more if I didn't have the 85 and 135, but since they are both much faster lenses I wouldn't grab the 100 over either.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by groovyone

You know, I have the 100mm 2.8 macro and really never use it outside of macro. I guess I would more if I didn't have the 85 and 135, but since they are both much faster lenses I wouldn't grab the 100 over either.

That's kind of the ground I am looking at. I have a 100mm 2.8 but never seem to use it as I have a 24-105 and 70-200. although the 24-105 is not a fast the 70-200 is and imo it's just as sharp. I don't really do macro so I don't see justification for having it and contemplating selling it. I do however wish I had a 24 or 35 f/1.4 or 1.2.... mmm shallow DOF

[groovyone]

I would consider an 85 if you are thinking people shots or even just real nice shallow DOF. Between the larger aperture and the tele range focal length you get nice shallow DOF.

[jeffkohn]

I have the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar, it's probably the sharpest lens I own. I can't say that's a focal length I use a whole lot, but even so I wouldn't consider parting with that lens. The sharpness and low distortion also make it a great lens for pano stitching.

[Tom]

Not at all. 100mm is really close to my 85mm 1.2L II. I don't think I would use it much if I got it. Though I have considered selling my 150mm 2.8 macro and getting the 100mm 2.8L IS Macro to get a little more DOF and get IS.

35-85-135 is a pretty great combo.

[Hardrock]

crbeveri I have a friend who is looking to purchase one so let me know if you want to sell.

I love my 100 macro and it also makes for a great portrait lens but there's overlap with the 70-200,so that really only makes it useful for macro for you. For a dedicated macro shooter a longer focal length will be a little more useful.

[kenw]

I have used my 100/2.8 macro for portraits, the 2.8 is nice. Since I got the 70-200/2.8, the flexibility of the zoom AND the 2.8 pretty much trump the prime for that use. Extreme sharpness in portraits is not always high on the wish list, IMHO, so I see your reluctance.

95% of the time the 100/2.8 macro is being used it is for actual macro, which I do fairly often. And it is very good for that. and it is definitely sharp.

[venchka]

Yes. Or 105mm prime. But that is a another brand.
Actually, I'm debating between the 100mm Macro and the 100mm/2.0.

[auddii]

Seems an odd question to ask of prime users (especially since you said that you commonly use two zooms to cover this range) or any other photogs in general. I'm sure there are thousands of people who use this lens, but if you don't then it's still pointless. If you haven't used it in the past year, then it's probably time to get rid of it.

[crbeveri]

Thanks everyone for the input and experiences. I am not really big into Macro and when I got it I though I would get more into it. After playing with it and doing macro (although I find it totally amazing) it's just not a style for me. I was using it a lot before I got the 70-200 but like was said that really covers it and is plenty sharp enough for what I do and the AF on the 70-200 I have is much quicker.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by auddii

Seems an odd question to ask of prime users (especially since you said that you commonly use two zooms to cover this range) or any other photogs in general. I'm sure there are thousands of people who use this lens, but if you don't then it's still pointless. If you haven't used it in the past year, then it's probably time to get rid of it.

not sure I understand why this is a odd question to ask prime users considering this is a prime lens. just like a 60mm macro is still a 60mm prime lens..... The fact that it has macro capabilities is just an extra thing.

And for what I shoot I actually use a prime for that (300mm 2.8) but yes I do couple that with the 70-200 2.8 b/c I don't have a 135 or the 200 f/2.

[DougC]

In years past, a 105mm was a standard portrait lens found in many, many peoples bags. As pointed out earlier, most DSLR's are DX format and the 85mm's have kind of knocked it out of play.

[jfoureyes]

There are times during the year in my nature photography that I'll walk around in the woods with just my 24 mm and 105 macro lens. They are my two favorite lenses and fit my vision for what I like to shoot.

[haring]

I use it for macro. I would definitely use it more if it would be a 100mm f/1.8... :):):)