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

[Bob Howland]

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.

Same here.

[Random Orbits]

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.

It really depends on whether or not you plan on using it indoors.  If so, I'd take another look at the 70-200 f/2.8 II with a strap system.  The 70-300L is fantastic for outdoors though.

[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.

It really depends on whether or not you plan on using it indoors.  If so, I'd take another look at the 70-200 f/2.8 II with a strap system.  The 70-300L is fantastic for outdoors though.

I do have a strap system for 2 bodies

[HoneyBadger]

I have no used the non-IS version but I do own the IS L version. I looked at the other but decided to go with the L series mainly because I want to walk around and shoot macro pictures without the need for a tripod. The IS works very well and I have gotten some amazing flower pictures without a tripod. If you want really small subjects such as insects, you will still need a tripod. The L series weather sealing is nice too. I have to admit that the 100mm 2.8L is my favorite lens. It is amazingly sharp. I am using a 5DIII too. I say, if you can afford either, get the L.

This is handheld in a park with the 100 IS L with hybrid IS on. That was the first shot so don't worry about having to take a ton and hope one comes out not blurry. This IS rocks.

[ahab1372]

The 70-300L is great. In the 70-200 range it is only minimally slower (less than one stop). AF and IS are great. I chose it over the 70-200 for the extra reach, and over the 100-400 because it retracts shorter and has better IS. It is sharp at its widest apertures.
If the 2.8 is out of the question, then I recommend the 70-300L

[Botts]

I own the 70-200 f/4 IS.  I've used the 70-300L, and if I were to do it again, I'd go with the 70-300L for the extra reach.

When I shot crop, the 70-200 was good, now with FF, I find it a little short.  I don't often shoot sports, normally animals with that lens, so the aperture wouldn't matter for me.

One thing to consider though, is the fact that the 70-200 f/4 IS will AF at f/8 on your 5D3 with a 2x tele, whereas the 70-300L may not as the aperture would be too high on the long end.  I'm not aware of anyone testing this though.

[knifez]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think L glass is covered by worldwide warranty where as non-L is covered by a warranty from the region you purchased the lens in, ie Australia, Asia, Eu, or America. So if you're purchased a lens of eBay from a grey market reseller, you'd be better off with the L glass. Resell value may also hold up a little better. But why would you ever want to sell the 100mm macro, they're awesome. 

[Faxon]

I have them both, and you will like either one, if you consider your needs. The IS lens often finds itself on my camera as a general purpose lens, while the older one always seemed to be dedicated for macro shots, although both do very nice portrait work on a full frame camera.

[Marsu42]

Thanks Marsu, I'm concerned about the weight of the 70-200/2.8L2.

Me too, and I'm a large male :-> but when I tried the 70-200/2.8is2 I immediately knew that that's a decisive difference to the also not lightweight 70-300L - the 70-200/2.8is2 creates much more torque on the wrist because the lens is longer (and next to that is not balanced on my lighter 60d body or the 6d I plan to buy).

I keep being told a strap system does some magic, though I haven't tried it - but the 70-200is2+flash-bracket+5d3-type body is way out of the "fun" league, however as a pro shooter only you can decide if the better af capability (larger aperture) and f2.8 @200mm makes it worth it to you anyway - renting it might be a good idea in this case.

[kobeson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think L glass is covered by worldwide warranty where as non-L is covered by a warranty from the region you purchased the lens in, ie Australia, Asia, Eu, or America. So if you're purchased a lens of eBay from a grey market reseller, you'd be better off with the L glass. Resell value may also hold up a little better. But why would you ever want to sell the 100mm macro, they're awesome. 

No longer the case, since late 2011 I believe Canon changed their warranty to only cover L lenses within the country they are sold from, just like everything else Canon.

[Eli]

I went with the L for the weather sealing, and the IS is awesome, I like to shoot handheld and have really shaky hands. But other than that IQ won't be noticeably different between the two.

[chas1113]

DCM:
I have had both the non-IS 100mm macro and the 70-200mm f/4 IS zoom and "upgraded" (yes, upgraded!) both to the IS macro L as well and the EF 70-300mm L. Regarding the macro comparisons, I can't tell if the IS version is actually sharper, but there is a quality difference between the images produced between the two. It may be micro-contrast, saturation or the quality of the background blur; whatever it is is, I prefer the L by far over the non-L. I mainly bought the L for the weather sealing and the IS, but found the focusing ring is much much smoother. It makes manual focus tweaking much better. I rarely use tripod for macro work and find with the L I am using it much more for portraits. Wide open it's insanely sharp and the bokeh is quite pleasing. I haven't found focusing speed to be an issue with either.

As far as the zoom comparisons: I found no appreciable difference regarding center sharpness between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L. However, I did notice edge sharpness improvements on my 5D Mark II with the 70-300. Also, I prefer the punched up colors/contrast with the 70-300 L versus the more clinical 70-200 f/4 IS. Being a petite woman, you should know that the 70-300L is considerably heftier than the 70-200 f/4. But the balance on a full frame body makes it seem less cumbersome. One last thing that you might consider (I did), the 70-300L and the 100mm macro L both use 67mm filters (like the 70-200mm f/4)...this may or may not matter to you. I have used the 70-300L indoors with a monopod, but I regard it mainly as an outdoor lens. If you NEED an indoor lens in this range, the 70-200mm f/2.8 versions are really the way to go.

[Marsu42]

But other than that IQ won't be noticeably different between the two.

... I've shot with both macro lenses a lot, and the bokeh smoothness and lights are visibly better on the L (larger diameter, more and rounded blades) and the sharpness difference might show with higher mp bodies and does show when you put a tc on it - I often shoot with the Kenko 1.4x. However as I wrote above, that doesn't matter for many macro shots.

I have used the 70-300L indoors with a monopod

In my experience the IS on the 70-300L is excellent and really cuts 2+ stops after a very short lock in time, so I find a monopod often not necessary, the problem simply is that for moving objects (and most things excepts rocks move a little) f4-f5.6 simply needs too high iso settings - but newer camera bodies like the 6d might do better here.

[chas1113]

"In my experience the IS on the 70-300L is excellent and really cuts 2+ stops after a very short lock in time, so I find a monopod often not necessary, the problem simply is that for moving objects (and most things excepts rocks move a little) f4-f5.6 simply needs too high iso settings - but newer camera bodies like the 6d might do better here."

Marsu: Agreed... 100+. I was using the monopod at a stage performance right next to a woman using a 70-200mm 2.8...my results ended up being better than hers. Not that I would recommend this lens for weddings or indoor shooting regularly. My point was (in a pinch) the 70-300mm can be used indoors with a monopod for slow movement. The IS is exceptional but mainly helps with camera shake.

[pj1974]

I have the Canon 100mm non-L macro, and it's great.  As true macro work (1:1 or near)  needs to be done on a tripod, the Hybrid IS is not that useful for macro (particularly as it's not just lens shake that needs to be accommodated for..., but certainly it CAN help in a few closeup, but not macro settings.

Furthermore, I occasionally use the 100mm non-L as a 'quick portrait' lens, and the AF 'focus range search' limiter does help here. I don't know why people complain that the nonL's AF is slow (it isn't on mine... esp on my 7D, that USM focus is really quite speedy, snappy and accurate!).  I have used the Canon 100mm L macro, and it's a bit better, but really splitting hairs. If that much weather sealing is required, sure... get it!

About Canon zooms (70-300mm L vs 70-200mm f/4 L) - I would get the 70-300mm L any day. At the same focal lengths, the 70-300mm's effective aperture is ALMOST the same anyway... plus it gives you an extra 100mm.  I use my 70-300mm for outside (mainly wildlife, birds, some other aspects.. .very occasionally informal sports). The IS of the 70-300mm is a tad superior to the 70-200 f/4, and the USM is basically the same.

If you are going in low light, sure the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (esp vII) is particularly useful / good.... but for me, when I am in 'low light' - I actually want REAL fast glass, and that means primes (eg f/1.4 - f/2).

Cheers.  All the best with your decision / outcome. 

Paul