November 28, 2014, 03:58:34 PM

Author Topic: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?  (Read 16446 times)

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2013, 07:37:59 AM »
IDEALLY, get the 70-200 f4 I.S. used and  L-macro used
here's why I think this is best.....

FWIW
I had both macros (had two for a year..FINALLY gave-in and sold non-L)  and
had the non - L  70-300 I.S. a very sharp useful lens... but not very robust physically - almost got  'L' version
and have the 70-200 I.S f4 and f2.8 II
all purchased new...
all on 5D3 now

////////
over 3-4 yrs
I did about 75% of my shots on non-L macro ...all with no tripod,
I got the L - macro and love the I.S. for hand-held macros .....chasing bugs and flowers..
IF you use a tripod, the orig macro is the same quality.... no need for I.S. version
(and PLENTY of real macro users  dont use tripod)

but the I.S. version makes even better use in reduced light for portraits etc... a little help on hand-held macro

IF you get the non - L and pursue the other lens..
I do not recommend the 70-200 f4 with out I.S
I.S. is necessary and the I.S. version has other quality improvements....(I.S. only on that one)
either get a used 70-200 I.S. f4.....or
get the 70-300L - a useful sharp range ..but slower.. that looks like a nice lens -I didnt try the L-version

there are plenty of used non-L macros at $400-450 and plenty of used 70-200 f4 I.S. at $900-1100 ..
many people moved to the f2.8 II and the L-macro.. and are selling the old, but good versions..

you can easily get those two for under $1500.. in perfect shape..
also used they are already depreciated and may well sit at that value for years....

the 70-200 f4 I.S. is the finest little lens Canon makes - IMO
I kept mine when I got the f2.8 II ... is is just so light and the sharpest of all the zooms ever made - IMO
1/2 weight of f2.8 II

depends on what you want

if you are a macro nut... and NOT tied to a tripod
then MY recommendation is the L-macro (maybe used also) and a used 70-200 f4 I.S.

just get aware of those two lenses in the various markets Craigs, Miranda or whatever..
and choose wisely...   

good luck

TOM
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 11:04:16 AM by TommyLee »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2013, 07:37:59 AM »

CharlieB

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2013, 09:20:48 AM »
I bought the non-L 100mm/2.8macro, then got a chance to try the 100mm/2.8L with IS.

I could see no difference, at all, in any real world shooting and informal testing.  None.  Any difference is on paper specs as far as I'm concerned.

Didn't like the IS for any of MY macro shots, as it does nothing for wind conditions and and miniscule movement you'd have forward and backward in hand held shots.... IS doesn't help that.  Sure, it will greatly reduce your own lateral movement blur... so there is some marginal help, but I didn't feel bad not having the IS.

Then I got another chance to try the lens in a NON MACRO condition..... specifically some informal portraits.  Folks were holding reasonably still, and light was getting low, but I was able to still shoot at f/4 and 1/20sec or even longer.  Fantastic for that sort of use!

I'm a proponent of getting dual use from the 100macros, for portraits as well.  There is very little practical difference in the 1 stop you get from the 100/2.0.  At f/2.8, the macros are already sharp.  Remember need "some" DOF just to get eyes and nose in focus... so I try to shoot at f/4 at least, preferably f/5.6.  The macros excel as 100mm portrait lenses.

steliosk

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
    • stelioskritikakis.com
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2013, 10:09:00 AM »
if you shoot portraits get the 100 L macro
if not get the non L

if you set an aperture around f/5 on a crop body you'll get VERY nice and sharp images with great bokeh and the IS is very useful in portrait or tele mode

as for macro mode the IS is not so effective, therefore i'd choose the non-L and a good tripod and manual focus of course.

However i own the 100 L macro and it is a fantastic lens for portrait, i don't deal with macro life much, not my style but it does a great job in macro as well. The 100 L is one of the best lenses canon ever made.

here is a portrait sample

http://500px.com/photo/6713177
Bodies: 5D3 + 600D
Lenses: STM 40, EF 50 1.4, EF 85 1.8, EF 100L, EF 24-105L, EF 24-70 2.8 II, EF 70-200 2.8 IS II, Samyang 14mm, Samyang 8mm Fisheye, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 15-85 and my old 350D relic reminding me how i started.

greger

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • 7D
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2013, 03:26:07 AM »
I bought the IS 100 macro because of the 67mm filter thread mount matches my 70-200 F4 IS USM and 17-85 F4-5.6
IS USM. I haven't used my tripod to take macro shots and will now that I have a new tripod that I can get down close to the ground where my subjects are. It's a great portrait lens for pics of people and flowers. I bought it when Canon had a
$100.00  instant rebate. I have used it with my Canon 580 flash with a Gary Fong collapsable diffuser at F7.1 with good results. I would have liked to use F11 or F12 so more of the Ladybug would be in focus. Will try to do that next time.

Spring isn't around the corner yet so you have time to decide which lens to get and shop for the best deal you can get.
Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

verysimplejason

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Account
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2013, 05:14:20 AM »
I've got a 100 USM non-L macro and I like it.  The one who sold it to me told me that he'll get the 100L instead.  After a few months, I've compared his new pics with his old pics and didn't notice anything different.  I guess it's just the brain behind the camera that's needed to make a difference.


Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3484
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2013, 11:22:45 AM »
I had borrowed a 100Lmacro and the non-L 100macro and went out to play with them on a 60D.

I really could not see any difference in image quality or focus when using them on static scenes or when shooting macro shots on a tripod, but when I tried to take pictures of butterflies in flight I was not able to get decent focus from the non-L lens and the L version was consistantly in focus. The L version also let me take sharp macro shots of bees.

I returned both loaners to the store and bought the L.
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2013, 11:22:45 AM »

jp121

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2013, 11:53:53 AM »
I've had both versions of the lens. I kept the L.

Obvious reasons, IS, weather sealing & L glass.

The problem I had with the non-L is hand-held in darker situations & keeping shutter speed over 1/100 with a T2i (limited ISO performance).  Of course, it's now a different story with 5D3 high ISO. But it's also nicer for the photo to keep the ISO down, regardless of the camera's strengths.
5DM3 | 50 f/1.2L | 100 f/2.8L MACRO IS | 16-35 f/2.8L II | 24-105 f/4 IS | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS | 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

Rockets95

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2013, 12:54:06 PM »
My usage would be weddings plus typical insect and floral macro shots.

If you are using these lenses on a tripod for macro, in my experience you will need a tripod collar. The overhung weight will create some vibration and noticeable blur. The Canon branded collars are in the $175 to $200 range and should be factored into the purchase decision. Just my two cents.
7D, WFT-E5A, 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, 24-105 F/4.0L, 10-22 F/3.5-4.5, 580EX-II, Wife has: 5D2, 70-200 4.0L IS, 100 2.8L IS macro, 24-105 F/4.0L IS, 17-40 F/4.0L

Normalnorm

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2013, 03:03:28 PM »
I do not have the L version but I use my 100 macro non-IS version almost daily. It is razor sharp and though I hear the L is a tad sharper I cannot imagine the difference would be visible except under the most rigorous testing conditions. As for IS I can see that as an advantage for the wedding work but less so for the macro work. Moreover a tripod is often used for super close work. The tripod collar is not a necessity as the lens is not that heavy but it is useful for rotating the camera without dismounting from the tripod.

The price difference is significant but it would be your call on the decision.

My feeling is that the non-IS represents the better value as what you are doing is paying quite a premium for IS.

drob

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2013, 05:40:28 PM »
Never shot the non IS version but rented the IS version.  Fell in love with it. The IS seemed to help with my shaky hands, even hand held macros. It was long on my crop sensor. If I had full frame, it would be on my list in a second.
Canon 60D, 24-105mm F4, Canon 50mm 1.4, 60mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, Sigma 30mm 1.4, Samyang 16mm 2.0.

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1522
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2013, 06:55:45 PM »
I have used the 100 L lenses for a few years now, only on Underwater Macro, the non IS Lens was good, but the newer L IS Lens is simply better all round, lighter, sharper & the IS does count, I cant give you technical reasons why, but in my Underwater Macro Photography the L IS 100 is a great Lens. I am also using the D800 with the Nikkor 105, also a good Lens but not as good as the Canon 100 L IS.

On the f/4 70-200 cant comment as I've never owned one, but I do have the 70-300 L & the 70-200 f2.8 L IS V2, the 70-200 v2 is simply one of the best Lenses I've owned, sell your car & buy this Lens, you will appreciate the f/2.8 over the f/4 I am sure especially as you mentioned "Weddings", never shot a wedding biut I imagine the low light benefits of the f/2.8 would be superior for this sort of work compared to say the f4 to f5.6 of the 70-300L. The 70-300 L is not a bad lens, Good range reasonable IQ, but not in the same class as the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS V2 Lens & it is shorter & lighter than the 70-200 v2, I rarely use the 70-300L anymore, bought it for Safari shooting but the slow speed kills it for dawn & dusk shooting, works good in brighter light though & the other disadvantage with this Lens is you cant use the 1.4x or 2x extenders, so your stuck with the range.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

alan_k

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2013, 03:13:20 PM »
I recently upgraded from the USM to the L (100mm macro). I haven't been able to play with it much, but I was recently at the Monterey Bay Aquarium and it was the lens I used the most (hauled around a ton of other glass- everything from a 30/1.4, 17-40L, 8-16, 70-300L). I was really pleased with the portrait-type photos I was getting of some of the fishes and captive birds. I didn't have my old lens to compare side by side but I've got to think the AF was a little faster from what I remember, and the AF limiter was awesome to have. Photos came out great. Maybe I should have given my old USM more of a chance, but I really don't think I would have reached for it in this circumstance.
EOS 6D, 60D, 17-40L, 70-300L, 40 2.8, 50 f1.8, 100L Macro, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 150-600.
EOS M
(recently owned: 100 2.8 USM Macro, Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2013, 03:13:20 PM »

greger

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • 7D
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2013, 05:42:59 PM »
DCM1024 I went back and re-read your original post. 70-200 F4 IS USM yes. 70-300L no! Can't use 1.4&2x Extenders on 70-300. The 1.4 works perfectly with no image degradation. 2x produces noise that I had to fix in Camera Raw in CS5.
Manually Focusing can be a pain with BIF. I could afford buying the extenders but not the longer lenses.

As I mentioned earlier the 100L & 70-200 both have 67mm thread mount so I can use my ND filters on both lenses.

I took pics of bees in flight using 70-200mm &1.4 extender with great results. A great amount of time and patience was needed. A lawn chair and shirt off allowed for some suntanning. ;D
Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

skitron

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2013, 08:19:14 PM »
FWIW, I've had focus inconsistency with my 100L. I've done a bunch of testing and finally nailed down what the issue is. The problem with mine is poor mechanical tolerances in the focus mechanism.

The way I tested was to put camera/lens on tripod and aim at test target. Use EOS Utility to control and view on screen. While attempting to dial in AFMA by magnifying 200% in EOS Utility, I notice that each time I change direction of the focus mechanism by clicking the single step "<" after clicking on the single step ">" a couple of times (or do it the other way around and click the > after clicking the <) , the entire image shifts noticably in the viewer frame and the focus goes whack even though the focus supposedly only took a single step.

So click > a couple of times then a single < and the entire image shifts leftward and focus whacks out. Click < a couple of times and then > and the entire image shifts rightward and focus whacks out.

None of my other lenses exhibit this behavior (and yes IS is turned off) and this is 100% repeatable.

So I'd highly suggest checking for this on a new 100L while you can return it since it is very easy to do and the lens is basically worthless if it has this issue.

Unfortunately mine is a few months past warranty so I own a $1K brick with Canon written on it. Too bad for me I didn't figure out how to diagnose Canon's manufacturing problems earlier, maybe they would have had pitty on me and given me a better one...but I'm SOL since warranty is expired.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 08:22:18 PM by skitron »
5D3, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 100L, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4 DG, Canon TC 1.4x III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2013, 08:19:14 PM »