Other then the aperture what is the difference between these lenses?

I'm torn too.The 100 macro is a really great lens for macro work - close ups - but I dont do a whole lot of that. Maybe I'd do more.I've always wanted the 100/2.0. Had the 85, liked the sharpness, but it was a tad shorter on FF than I wanted. I've found I'm doing more head/shoulders with 135mm on FF... so am thinking the 100/2 is on my XTi is gonna be more like the 135/2 on a 5dHard choice. May have to rethink macro options, dunno. -- Livin' the blues, one note at a time

Is the 100/2 faster then the 100/2.8 macro?

oceanthrstywrote:Is the 100/2 faster then the 100/2.8 macro?Is "2" smaller than "2.8"?The 100/2 is an f2 lens - one stop faster than the 100/2.8 macro at f2.8.The 100/2 focuses about a million times faster (okay, that's an exaggeration but it's just stunningly fast).The 100/2.8 is a macro lens - extremely sharp and has a very flat field. The 100/2 is a faster prime.You can shoot macros with the 100/2 with extension tubes. The 100/2 is more flexible, faster and faster to focus. I'd only get the 100/2.8 macro over the 100/2 if you are mainly using it as a macro lens.

I know it's one stop faster but I meant as far as AF.With that being said that was exactly the answer I was looking for.Thank you.

The bokeh for portraits may be more pleasing with the 100/2 than with the macro. The macro will be sharper, though. The 100/2 is plenty sharp for portraits, though.