100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F.28L IS macro

[pwp]

For wedding work I'd be choosing the one with the quickest AF.
IQ on both lenses is fantastic, so no issue there.

OTOH why not consider the legendary 135 f/2 as an alternative?

-PW

[Marsu42]

In terms of quality, the regular is unbelievably sharp - even wide open.  Maybe the L is better, but at that point I really don't think it will be noticeable unless you start comparing them side by side and start pixel peeping.

The difference shows when you use a crop camera or a tc (working distance) on the 100L vs the non-L, the L version is clearly sharper wide open and diffraction sets in later. Other than that, the L has nicer, rounder lights in bokeh due to different blade design, but that's hardly an issue on its own. As a macro lens for sane apertures like f5-f10 the non-L is nearly the same.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I know tons of people will say "oh my god.  you need IS." or something like "OMG, the weather sealing is a must."  but, IS isn't very useful at this length, and don't use your camera underwater.  if your lens does break because of water you can buy a second one and still be at the same price for one of the L's.

+1 for unnecessary IS, but sealing isn't just a protection against water, but against sand/dust, too. That's the reason I upgraded after my non-L broke down due to sand for the second time, it's hard to keep the lens out of harm's way when being outdoors and near the ground.

[K-amps]

You have to understand, anyone who bought the L version will have convinced themselves it was better. Human nature.

I have Owned and sold both 100 f/2.8's. They are similar in sharpness. The L is pricier and looks nicer and theoretically IS should help... but I never got much blurry pics with the non-L so I did not miss IS.

However if I was hunting for moving insects then the IS would help a little as I panned. Otherwise the non-IS was very sharp too, and add to that, had a wonderful Bokeh.

For wedding, the non-IS is just as good. It depends how much cash you have. the non-IS could probably take 95% shots that the L can, but is 50% the price.

[JohanCruyff]

9 (rounded) blades vs 8: 100L IS bokeh should be (is) nicer.

Bokeh is generally considered important for portraits.

The two Canon 100mm Macro lenses aren't portrait lenses: for a wedding, I'd probably follow the advice of a 100mm F/2 or 135mm F/2 L.

[Marsu42]

The two Canon 100mm Macro lenses aren't portrait lenses: for a wedding, I'd probably follow the advice of a 100mm F/2 or 135mm F/2 L.

No lens has "portrait" written on it, but the 100L certainly is usable for this application, and for a wedding is more versatile than the 100/2 because you can close-up shots without changing lenses. The "real" flexible portrait lens for weddings is the 70-200/2.8 if you are willing to carry that around.

9 (rounded) blades vs 8: 100L IS bokeh should be (is) nicer.

Having shot with both lenses I can say that the *rounded* blades make the difference, at least when there are highlights in the bokeh - it's not so much of a difference if it's just the standard background blur.

[preppyak]

No lens has "portrait" written on it, but the 100L certainly is usable for this application, and for a wedding is more versatile than the 100/2 because you can close-up shots without changing lenses. The "real" flexible portrait lens for weddings is the 70-200/2.8 if you are willing to carry that around.

True, but, if you're going with a prime, one of the 100mm macro's is a nice combo to have so you don't have to keep changing lenses to get detail shots.

[paulc]

If all you're looking for a lens just to get a macro shot the rings, get a Panasonic LX5.  It's a heck of a lot cheaper and easier than a macro lens plus the small sensor size is actually a benefit here.

[EatingPie]

You have to understand, anyone who bought the L version will have convinced themselves it was better. Human nature.

Win for being totally dismissive of those with a different opinion! :p

"Your opinion doesn't count because you own the L lens and you just need to justify the price!"

For me, IS is hugely beneficial because I have a fairly shaky hand.  I'm considering selling my 100 USM for the 100 L purely for IS.  But one thing is sure, my current lens is still awesome even if I don't upgrade.

-Pie

[colvinatch]

I own the 100mm 2.8 non IS and it is a great lens.  I would look for it used on ebay and put the savings into a strobe.  A good strobe coupled with f~2.8 will allow a fast enough shutter speed to make a tripod un-necessary, as well as giving you a lot more versatility in your other shots at a wedding.  As a footnote, the 100mm makes a fantastic portrait lens.

[TexPhoto]

Lord.    The IS is better, it has IS for example.  It is more expensive.

So buy the one that you can afford.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You have to understand, anyone who bought the L version will have convinced themselves it was better. Human nature.

I have Owned and sold both 100 f/2.8's. They are similar in sharpness. The L is pricier and looks nicer and theoretically IS should help... but I never got much blurry pics with the non-L so I did not miss IS.

However if I was hunting for moving insects then the IS would help a little as I panned. Otherwise the non-IS was very sharp too, and add to that, had a wonderful Bokeh.

For wedding, the non-IS is just as good. It depends how much cash you have. the non-IS could probably take 95% shots that the L can, but is 50% the price.

Just for the record I owned both and the L was just a little better with micro-contrast with my copies and the IS can be useful for say flowers without tripods or to help you just manage to get natural light bug pics so long as the bugs are still (you will likely still need to fire off in burst mode and then pick the sharp ones out, but a few sharp ones is better than all but none). (interesting was the lens rental test though which did verify that most L are sharper than most non-L, however it also found that the best non-L were actually a little bit crisper than the worst L copies)

But yeah twice the price is a lot, the sharpness difference is less than say the 70-300 vs 70-300L (although bigger than the 1.4x TC II vs III in the center of the frame, now that one you need 200% view and microscope and careful staring even at that to see the III is sharper, in that cases the difference is more at the edges and in CA) so it may not make sense for a good number of people.

In the end I did like the L better and decided to keep it and sell the non-L, although certainly the non-L is pretty good, but the IS does help at times for me for sure and heck why not get the touch better pop to details and a bit more BG blur when shooting both at f/2.8.

[jdramirez]

For wedding work I'd be choosing the one with the quickest AF.
IQ on both lenses is fantastic, so no issue there.

OTOH why not consider the legendary 135 f/2 as an alternative?

-PW

If you don't need the macro... I think the 135 just sounds crazy amazing.  If I can get one cheap... I'd keep both my 100mm f/2.8L Macro and the 135... I just have to find the cash or a great price.

[K-amps]

You have to understand, anyone who bought the L version will have convinced themselves it was better. Human nature.

Win for being totally dismissive of those with a different opinion! :p

"Your opinion doesn't count because you own the L lens and you just need to justify the price!"

For me, IS is hugely beneficial because I have a fairly shaky hand.  I'm considering selling my 100 USM for the 100 L purely for IS.  But one thing is sure, my current lens is still awesome even if I don't upgrade.

-Pie

Thats an assumption and an unfair one. I was referring to myself. When I upgraded to the L, I had convinced myself it was better and I really needed the IS. Now both are gone and I shoot with the 180mm.

There will be situations where the IS is needed, however an objective evaluation is needed, perhaps not an emotive one. As I look back on some of the shots I have taken with both, I tend to prefer the rendering of the non-L. I sometimes wonder why... on the other hand you will find people who prefer the L. This just tells you how close the 2 models are. In many cases it boils down to price.

[kirillica]

As it was said: do for the one you can afford. I tried both and my decision is IS version: it's a bit sharper, has better micro-contrast, AF seems to be faster, weather sealing is a good stuff for shooting outside and IS helping a lot too, if you don't want to use flash and boost ISO.

and L-version is looking better 

[TexPhoto]

How about going closer than 1:1?  Do either work well with extension tubes?