!00mm macro L or non L

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Is the L worth 2 x price of non L bearing in mind both have max aperture of f/2.8?

[keithfullermusic]

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.

[well_dunno]

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...

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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]

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]

If you are mainly going to hand hold the L is the obvious choice

[gene_can_sing]

The L is awesome.

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

[HeavenHell]

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.

[scrappydog]

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.

Agreed.  I have the non-L version and will upgrade at some point so that I can hand hold easier.  Both are great lenses.  Sharp with terrific bokeh.

[rwmson]

Awesome shots there HH!  I liked the bee the most.

[DBCdp]

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]

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]

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

[gary]

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.