!00mm macro L or non L

[Chewy734]

I have the L.  Having the IS is really nice for handheld macro shots.  Plus, you can use it as a good portrait lens too.

[Hector1970]

I have the L and no experience on the non L .  I have found the L to be a magnificent lens. Excellent for Macro and for Portraits it has a lovely bokeh. It's hard to tell whether IS is useful or not. At 2.8 the depth of field is so shallow it's hard to tell whether the IS helps or not. I love it as a lens as colours are great on it and the bokeh is very smooth. It's as sharp as tack.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/6665297581/#in/set-72157625645417935

[KreutzerPhotography]

Does anyone have any portrait comparisons for these two lenses. I am a wedding photographer and looking for more glass (as always). The 100mm L is what I think I want but If I can get by with the 100mm (non L) I would like to spend the cash elsewhere...

[recon photography]

Does anyone have any portrait comparisons for these two lenses. I am a wedding photographer and looking for more glass (as always). The 100mm L is what I think I want but If I can get by with the 100mm (non L) I would like to spend the cash elsewhere...

With your kit the 100mmL would be the number 1 lenses i would recommend followed by a fast 50, 1.8 would do fine. the 100mmL make a great portrait lens.

[pdirestajr]

I actually originally had the L version, but traded it for a lens I use more (the 70-200 f/4 IS). Then got the non-L version later on.

This version is also very good for portraits and focuses fast (as long as you aren't going from macro to far).


Violet by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

And here is an "action" shot showing how fast the focus tracking is on my 7D. Shot in AI Servo.


Vi <3's Swings! by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

And an upclose shot.


Stick + Bench = Fun by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

This lens is really fun to use as a telephoto/ portrait lens that basically has no minimum focus distance for normal photography. Then Macro is a plus.

[NAshby]

The L is well worth the extra cash, the hybrid IS makes a huge difference if you are using it hand held (which I am 95% of the time for weddings)

~Nathan Ashby
Photography Apprentice Coordinator
http://www.brovadoweddings.com/blog/photography-apprentice/

[dadgummit]

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.

100% agree!

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Does anyone have any portrait comparisons for these two lenses. I am a wedding photographer and looking for more glass (as always). The 100mm L is what I think I want but If I can get by with the 100mm (non L) I would like to spend the cash elsewhere...

If you are doing close up images of wedding rings or other small objects, the hybrid IS is wonderful.  Otherwise, you likely have other lenses that will do as good or better for portraits, so portrait use is a side benefit.  I never use mine for portraits, my 135mm l is so much better.

[Marsu42]

I never use mine for portraits, my 135mm l is so much better.

I agree that a macro is not a dedicated portrait lens (thus I got the non-L version) - but out of interest: what's so much better about the 135L? sharpness wide open? bokeh?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I never use mine for portraits, my 135mm l is so much better.

I agree that a macro is not a dedicated portrait lens (thus I got the non-L version) - but out of interest: what's so much better about the 135L? sharpness wide open? bokeh?

All of the above plus F/2 aperture.
 
Lack of IS may bother some, but for portraits, IS is not a big issue to me.

[epsiloneri]

I've used both. If there is a difference optically, it's completely insignificant in practice. They are both extremely good. I've found that the IS doesn't help as much for macro as I had hoped, but it is helpful if you use the lens for non-macro distances (for e.g. candid portraits). For macro, a flash is much more useful. You could use the price difference to get e.g. a Sigma EM-140 DG Macro Flash.

Comparing the EF 100/2.8L to the EF 135/2.0L for portraits, I would again say that the difference in sharpness (and bokeh) is insignificant (they are both excellent), the most important difference is instead the larger aperture of the 135L and the IS of the 100L.

[Marsu42]

You could use the price difference to get e.g. a Sigma EM-140 DG Macro Flash.

I also thought about getting a macro flash - but looking at the price tag for me it's more useful to get two remote speedlites that I can use for non-macro work, too. The Canon IR system works just fine at these distance. As long as my lens doesn't cast a shadow, even the built-in flash of my 60d works as an additional fill flash. Last not least, I personally found that stopped down directional light looks better than the full-frontal blow of a macro flash - but ymmv of course.

[prestonpalmer]

The L is TOTALLY worth the 2x price jump.  The IS alone is incredible.  4 stops!  I use this lens now for wedding photography ALL the time.  In fact.  If my all time favorite wedding portrait lens now!   Highly recommend the L.

[epsiloneri]

I use this lens now for wedding photography ALL the time.  In fact.  If my all time favorite wedding portrait lens now!

What is it about the 100/2.8L IS that makes you prefer it (on weddings) to the 70-200/2.8L IS II? Is it the less intimidating size or macro capability? IQ seems very comparable at 100mm, with the macro having a tad nicer bokeh. The 70-200, on the other hand, is much more versatile for portraits, so I would have thought you'd prefer that.