Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?

[DCM1024]

I have read prior threads and am still not sold on one lens versus the other. My usage would be weddings plus typical insect and floral macro shots. I have a tax refund coming which would pay for either copy plus a 70-200 f/4 or 70-300L. Any input, especially practical use experience would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[sandymandy]

IQ is nearly the same while the L somewhat looks like it got 2% better IQ. If you can live without IS just get the cheaper one.

[skitron]

You might want to check the 5D3 manual for the different AF groups these two lenses are in and see if that is an issue for how you'd use them.

[Kernuak]

You might want to check the 5D3 manual for the different AF groups these two lenses are in and see if that is an issue for how you'd use them.

There is a definite difference there, although for macro work you would be using manual focusing mainly. I have the non-IS and found out about the lesser group with that lens. For weddings and portraits, that may make a difference, even if it may be slightly quicker at focusing, judging by review comparisons and anecdotal reports.

[BL]

get the 100L IS if you want to use it as a medium tele at low shutter speeds, at normal distances.

at 1:2 or 1:1, the IS is mostly a novelty (for me).  i get maybe 1 stop max of benefit handheld.

[crasher8]

I just spent 2 hours doing macro at a glacial lake (8900 ft) after a 45 minute hike. I love my non IS 100 Macro and if you're using a dedicated macro tripod and a focus rail then who needs the red ring.

[nda]

I bought the non L first, great lens very sharp and great for portraits and macro, but I kept getting these hunger pains craving for the L. So one day I just bought one, sold the non L and couldn't be happier they are both very good but the L is just a little better at what it does and it has IS FWIW>if its within your budget get the L, the L is cool and my Fav

[Marsu42]

My usage would be weddings plus typical insect and floral macro shots.

Of course get the L version if you've got the money the better bokeh & sharpness wide open plus IS for dual-use is a no-brainer, even w/o considering the 5d3/1dx lens groups. The non-L is a good budget macro-only solution esp. when the lens is bought used since it's around for some time, the IS doesn't help much @1:1.

Btw the decisive improvements on the L for me are seldom mentioned - sealing (for outdoor macro against dust) and an extended range limiter over the non-L for *non-macro* range that prevents hunting when shooting portraits, the af speed is mediocre at best (it is a macro lens after all).

[DCM1024]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply. I will probably get the IS version as I never use a tripod at weddings unless I'm using a video cam. Any input regarding the other 2 lens choices I mentioned? Thanks, Debbie

[gjones5252]

Just to only help confirm. I had the L for about a week and wasnt impressed. I returned it to canon because i figured i would pick up the non is
After about 3 weeks the itch started. I wanted that lens again. I looked at the pictures i had taken even during events and macro. They were insanely sharp.
I now have this lens and am excited to be able to use it at a wedding in a week! To me the limiter, the sealing, and for video the is is all worth it. Glad i went with it...again.

[Marsu42]

Any input regarding the other 2 lens choices I mentioned? Thanks, Debbie

There are a lot of threads on this, I got the slightly more expensive "outdoor" 70-300L because I don't mind the extending zoom design and non-constant aperture but want the larger zoom range and smaller pack size. Btw: The newer 70-300L is better on a 5d3/1dx since it's got more current af system, doesn't matter for all other camera bodies. Concerning iq, the 70-200/4 might be slightly sharper (see iso crops @ the digital picture), but nothing that would make a real difference - if you want "THE" indoor zoom lens the 70-200/2.8is2 is the one to get anyway. My only issue with the 70-300L is the missing af range limiter (thanks, Canon).

[DCM1024]

Any input regarding the other 2 lens choices I mentioned? Thanks, Debbie

There are a lot of threads on this, I got the slightly more expensive "outdoor" 70-300L because I don't mind the extending zoom design and non-constant aperture but want the larger zoom range and smaller pack size. Btw: The newer 70-300L is better on a 5d3/1dx since it's got more current af system, doesn't matter for all other camera bodies. Concerning iq, the 70-200/4 might be slightly sharper (see iso crops @ the digital picture), but nothing that would make a real difference - if you want "THE" indoor zoom lens the 70-200/2.8is2 is the one to get anyway. My only issue with the 70-300L is the missing af range limiter (thanks, Canon).

Thanks Marsu, I'm concerned about the weight of the 70-200/2.8L2. I'm female, 5'3" and think it would be an issue for me on an 8 - 12 hour event. If the sharpness is minimal, the 70-300L would be my choice for the added reach. My primary body is the 5d3. I do realize I lose the extra cross sensors by not having the 2.8.

[steven kessel]

I've got the non-L non IS 100.  Mine is about 10 years old and it is a great lens.  I don't use it for hand held macro photography.  My macro work is done strictly on a tripod.  For general purpose photography, I sometimes use this lens and, of course, my photos are hand held.  It produces terrific results and I have no need to upgrade to an L or to IS with this particular lens.

[rpt]

I got the L version as most of my shooting is hand held and I need IS for that. Like Steven.K said, if you are not going to shoot hand held, you don't need the IS...

[sdsr]

I have read prior threads and am still not sold on one lens versus the other. My usage would be weddings plus typical insect and floral macro shots. I have a tax refund coming which would pay for either copy plus a 70-200 f/4 or 70-300L. Any input, especially practical use experience would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I'm inclined to say that the L is worth having if only because of the IS; it may not help much with true macro photography, but it does at all other times, especially when there's less light and you're not using a tripod.  As for the two zooms you mention, I own both and they're both superb (so I probably shouldn't keep both...).   The extra reach of the longer zoom is nice to have, and while it's not as fast as the 70-200, its excellent IS, coupled with the low light performance of your 5DIII probably compensate - I often take hand-held shots with it at night and have had very good results on my 5DII (probably even better on 6D and 5DIIIs I recently rented).