Canon has developed a sub-L build quality with the L label (100mm f/2.8L MACRO).
How is the build quality of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS 'sub-L'? Mine feels quite solid, definitely a step up from my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 100L Macro is weather-sealed, many of my other L lenses are not. If you think it's 'sub-L' because the barrel is 'engineering plastic', well, most black L lens barrels are the same material.
the debunked rumor about Canon getting rid of the non-L EF-lenses.
How and when was the idea that Canon is done with non-L EF lenses debunked? The only non-L EF lens released since the launch of the first Canon APS-C camera was the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and it's pretty well known that the cost savings from EF-S telephoto lenses are a diminishing return. There hasn't been a new non-L EF prime lens since well before the D30.
I'm curious to hear how the 100L is sub L quality too.
It's funny how something can be perceived as "cheap", or as stated above, "sub L" quality based on build material and weight alone. The truth is, as 95% of the photographers on this site will tell you, a lens doesn't gain it's classification into the "L" series based on build quality alone. Otherwise you could take the components from a 18-55 f/4.5-5.6 and assemble it within a 2lbs. weather sealed housing, and call it an "L"....
In my opinion, its the physics behind the optics and the image that it can produce in combination with rigidity and build quality that classifies the lens. Don't get me wrong... the build quality is most definitely important in a L - series lens, being their professional line and all. I just find that what they did with the 100mm 2.8L is perfectly adequate.
Can you drop it from 5ft onto concrete and still use the lens? Probably not, and i'm most certainly not willing to test that. BUT - it does have some nice weather sealing that has held up to light/moderate rain on my 7D just fine, and that in combination with the fantastic images I can capture classify it as an "L- Series" lens for me.