April 21, 2014, 03:16:52 AM

Author Topic: !00mm macro L or non L  (Read 6443 times)

itsnotmeyouknow

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
!00mm macro L or non L
« on: April 01, 2012, 05:55:55 PM »
Is the L worth 2 x price of non L bearing in mind both have max aperture of f/2.8?

canon rumors FORUM

!00mm macro L or non L
« on: April 01, 2012, 05:55:55 PM »

keithfullermusic

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 364
    • View Profile
    • k2focus.com
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2012, 06:11:10 PM »
The non L is amazing.  I don't see how any lens can be twice as good.  I'm not sure if that added price is for weather sealing and IS, because the optics on the non L are nearly perfect.
5Diii - 50D - 100mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 20mm f/2.8, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, 430 EX II, YN560
---
Pics - http://k2focus.com | Tunes - http://keithfullermusic.com | For Fun - http://thewalkingdeadrumors.com

well_dunno

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2012, 06:40:56 PM »
I have non-L and am happy with it.

L is slightly sharper and then it has the hybrid IS and better build quality etc.  Though the hybrid IS is not very effective for macro says dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16

Some folks here in the forum have updated from non-L to L, I recall reading. They might have a better perspective...
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 06:44:42 PM by well_dunno »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12793
    • View Profile
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2012, 07:33:15 PM »
If you're going to handhold at 1:2 or less, e.g. taking pictures of flowers, wedding rings, etc., the 100L with the hybrid-IS would be a better choice.  If you'll be shooting mostly from a tripod, the non-L will do fine.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Mt Spokane Photography

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 7714
    • View Profile
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2012, 07:46:00 PM »
I had two or three non L versions and sold them all.  I like to hand hold them, and could not get consistently sharp images hand held.  For many images, it took so long to focus that using AI Servo, I often clicked the shutter before the lens had finally focused, or at least, that what I suspected.
 
I'm much happier with the "L" as a walk around lens, it focuses quickly, and the Hybrid IS lets me take handheld images that are reasonably sharp. 
 
As long as you are patient and careful, the 100mm USM is plenty sharp, its just not the best choice for someone who is impatient.
 
Here are some I took with the 100mmL just walking around.
 

 
 

 
Here is one with the 100mm USM
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

prestonpalmer

  • Guest
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2012, 01:23:22 PM »
Get the L!!!  Its way better.  Im super glad I upgraded.  Much sharper, and the IS is outstanding. I never used the V1 for portraits, and I use the V2, IS L for portraits all the time!  In fact, is one of my favorite lenses for wedding photography.

iaind

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2012, 03:33:14 PM »
If you are mainly going to hand hold the L is the obvious choice
5DIII + BGE11 / 5DII + BGE6 / 40D + BGE2N /8-15 4L / 17-35 2.8L / 24 3.5L TS-E / 24-105 4L IS /Zuiko 50 1.4/ 100 2.8L Macro IS / 70-200 2.8L / 300 4L / 100-400L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2012, 03:33:14 PM »

gene_can_sing

  • Guest
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2012, 04:06:19 PM »
The L is awesome.

In the immortal (modified) words of Gangsters everywhere: "Cry Now, Smile Later."

HeavenHell

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2012, 04:13:53 PM »
I have the 100m non L and the Tamron 90mm macro and I enjoy both lenses.
If you're going to do a lot of non-tripod work, I agree with the other that the added expense of the L with IS is probably worth it.







Canon T2i, 7D, 5DM3
24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, 85 f1.8, 100 f/2.8 Macro, 50 f/1.4, 17-55 f/2.8, Tamron 90 f/2.8, 70-300 L

rwmson

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
    • Spirit Studios
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2012, 07:58:22 AM »
Awesome shots there HH!  I liked the bee the most.
Rebel T1i | G12 | 5D Mk III | Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AF | Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Zoom Lens

DBCdp

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2012, 09:33:01 AM »
I did love my 100 v1 for it's sharpness, did not love it when I tried to use it for portraits. The new 100mm L IS is the best of both worlds. Takes incredible portrait shots while allowing a freedom for macro's never before attainable! Like all the best lenses, you still have to do your part for best performance. I've gotten used to using a monopod, helps a lot and is much faster to use than a tripod. But still can't replace the steadiness of a tripod of course, so there are still times that it's worth setting up the tripod and turning off the IS.

The shot here is with the 100L, on a Gitzo 5441 using the 1Ds MkII with a 580EXII on a RRS flash bracket optimized with AI Servo. Had to cut down a Black Walnut tree lost to the drought last year and found the bark very interestingly laden with lichen and fungii, had to grab some shots....of course! :)

Marsu42

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 4091
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2012, 10:17:54 AM »
Is the L worth 2 x price of non L bearing in mind both have max aperture of f/2.8?

Oh no, this discussion all over again :-p ... see the search ... my 2 cents: the sharpness of the non-L version is almost as excellent as the L and at the same time well below other primes at open aperture (see the test charts on the review sites), and IS does not or helps very little for real macro distances and because you'll be using a tripod a lot anyway.

The advantages of the L are: a) IS so this lens more usable for portraits and as a walkaround, too, b) dust sealing (this is an issue if you are working near the ground outdoors), c) red ring gives you a considerable ego boost and divides the crowd in front of you.

You'll have to decide for yourself if that's worth it, esp. because you can get used non-L versions very cheap while the L sells almost at its original price.

itsnotmeyouknow

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2012, 01:17:34 PM »
I tried both and in the end took the L. It was sharper than the non L although the non L was still very crisp. The deciding factor in the end was the dust and weather protection as I sometimes use this focal length on landscapes and portraits.

I often use a 120 macro with my 645d  which gives effective focal length of around 90mm on 35mm and love the sharpness
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 01:19:35 PM by itsnotmeyouknow »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2012, 01:17:34 PM »

gary

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2012, 02:08:22 PM »
I upgraded and the difference is worth the price. Its all been said before but it is a lens that I tend to leave on the camera, great hand held all around lens, its more than just a macro.
5D Mkiii -  16-35L mkii, 24-70L mkii, 70-200L IS mkii, 85 1.8

Marsu42

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 4091
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2012, 02:15:06 PM »
I upgraded and the difference is worth the price. Its all been said before but it is a lens that I tend to leave on the camera, great hand held all around lens, its more than just a macro.

You're on full frame, right? In this case I'd agree, but on aps-c the 100mm imho is too long as a "always on" lens and thus I'm only using it for macro shots. For everything else I'd rather use my 70-300L because the 70->100mm difference is very notable.

*standard disclaimer: If money is of no concern, of course I'd advise everyone to get the L version, there are no drawbacks.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2012, 02:15:06 PM »