L-fever...

[K3nt]

...I think I have it.. Is there a cure or am I forever a lost cause? ;D
The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is brilliant! Now all I do is browse for deals on the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro lens, seems I can't get enough.

 

[kirillica]

100L Macro is a perfect, well-built and very sharp lens, good for both: macros and portrets

 

[epsiloneri]

If you already have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II, it is already close to the ultimate portrait lens. Have you considered using macro extension tubes for it? The 100/2.8L macro is great, but perhaps you would complement your lens collection better with a wide-angle lens. (depends on what you have and are interested in, of course)

 

[K3nt]

It's a sickness... I want all L's... Anything... must...have... ;D

I think this sickness can only be cured by buying L-lenses... (or if someone whacks me over the head real hard) ;D

 

[Flake]

I sold a perfectly good 100mm Macro to buy the 100mm L (partly because I got a great deal) but it was a dissapointment, it's not really any better optically and the H-IS doesn't make enough of a difference to justify the price.

My advice to anyone wanting a lens for macro would be to buy the cheaper 100mm and a macro flash, that will give better images than even the very best macro without a flash. (Cue dissent!)

There are a few niggles with the 100mm L too, they don't get mentioned much in all the adulation - it's not a perfect lens, far from it.

The lens hood is ridiculously large so much so that it's unusable for macro photography, if it doesn't scare away your subject it will block out so much light that you won't be able to focus accurately!

The body is plastic so are the lens filter threads it's easy to strip them!

The lens is larger than other macro lenses so the macro flashes won't fit and you have to buy an adaptor like a step down ring - simple enough buy Canon will relieve you of £45 (£45 for a step down ring !!!!!) just so you can attach it. It fits the old one directly.

The H-IS is good for about 1 stop at 1:1 magnification I suppose every little helps, but it's just not enough to make a significant difference.

This isn't a cheap lens, it costs nearly 75% more than the non L version, and although it's a great performer, the old one was too, to be honest it's difficult to tell which images were taken with which lens.

Internal focussing makes both of these lenses very quick, especially when compared to third party offerings, but be aware that as they focus the focal length drops so the lenses are actually 67mm at macro magnification.

 

[EYEONE]

I saw a discussion article on a photography website that was asking "How many lenses do you need?" I thought about it for a minute and settled on "All of them?"

 

[neuroanatomist]

Have you considered using macro extension tubes for it?

Extension tubes are much more effective on shorter lenses. With a 25mm tube, the best you get is 0.36x magnification (and that's at the 70mm end - at the 200mm end, the magnification is only 0.14x, which is less than the 0.21x mag you get without the tube).

For telephoto lenses, you should be looking at the 500D Close-up Lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with the 500D Close-up Lens yields 0.6x magnification, also does surprisingly well. The IQ is not quite as good as the L marco lens, but considering the cost of the 500D it's very good (I tried some comparison flower shots, and could not easily tell which was which).

Regarding L-fever - just give in, there is no cure (except death or destitution).

 

[ronderick]

L-fever?

Well, there's some makeshift remedies you can try, like putting a red-color rubberband around your non-L lens. Of course, they offer only temporary relief...

On a side note, I have seen L-fever victims "progress" to the next stage - when they insist that the red band must be paired with a white-colored lens that's 300mm-plus. It usually occurs when the victims take on a sudden infatuation with shooting birds. At this point you should be really worried.

Of course, when you start seeing the red dot on the camera instead of the red band around the lens... now THAT can be deadly...

 

[dstppy]

...I think I have it.. Is there a cure or am I forever a lost cause? ;D
The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is brilliant! Now all I do is browse for deals on the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro lens, seems I can't get enough.

I had a bad case of it until I got my 24-105mm . . . then I had a bit of buyer's remorse. I got the 15-85mm when I bought my 60D and it sort of set the bar high for lenses. It's not an L, but just barely. Build quality and IQ are just fabulous and the range feels good on a crop body.

It wasn't until I got the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM that I realized why people were so enamored with the build quality of L glass. It was a nice lens, but felt really cheap.

On the 7D, do you find yourself taking a lot of shots at 100mm?

 

[prestonpalmer]

this is a good and expensive addiction. I only buy L's and when they release an update to an L I already have, I upgrade!

 

[Admin US West]

Yes, I love fine tools, and do, in fact get some images with lenses like the 135mm L and 35mm L that I could not get with consumer grade lenses.

However, I would definitely do fine without them, I'd just have to work harder to be creative. I've seen lots of work done with the non-L lenses that is excellent, but I still love the "L" lenses.

 

[K3nt]

I saw a discussion article on a photography website that was asking "How many lenses do you need?" I thought about it for a minute and settled on "All of them?"

I seem to agree with this... ;D

 

[K3nt]

It would seem from the replies that medical science has no remedy for this odd and very specific disease so I will just have to give in and try to survive. I like the red rubber-band idea that was suggested, I might try that until I save up for the next L-addition.

Oh, and the bird thing... I've heard once you go down that route nothing is ever quite enough. (I was wondering whether the 1200mm with a 2x Extender III and a crop body (7D) might be enough, but I came to the conclusion that probably not. ;D )

EDIT 2: the extender probably won't even work with that lens..

 

[kirillica]

I sold a perfectly good 100mm Macro to buy the 100mm L (partly because I got a great deal) but it was a dissapointment, it's not really any better optically and the H-IS doesn't make enough of a difference to justify the price.

My advice to anyone wanting a lens for macro would be to buy the cheaper 100mm and a macro flash, that will give better images than even the very best macro without a flash. (Cue dissent!)

There are a few niggles with the 100mm L too, they don't get mentioned much in all the adulation - it's not a perfect lens, far from it.

The lens hood is ridiculously large so much so that it's unusable for macro photography, if it doesn't scare away your subject it will block out so much light that you won't be able to focus accurately!

The body is plastic so are the lens filter threads it's easy to strip them!

The lens is larger than other macro lenses so the macro flashes won't fit and you have to buy an adaptor like a step down ring - simple enough buy Canon will relieve you of £45 (£45 for a step down ring !!!!!) just so you can attach it. It fits the old one directly.

The H-IS is good for about 1 stop at 1:1 magnification I suppose every little helps, but it's just not enough to make a significant difference.

This isn't a cheap lens, it costs nearly 75% more than the non L version, and although it's a great performer, the old one was too, to be honest it's difficult to tell which images were taken with which lens.

Internal focussing makes both of these lenses very quick, especially when compared to third party offerings, but be aware that as they focus the focal length drops so the lenses are actually 67mm at macro magnification.

Well this all is a question of taste. As I shot in studio mainly, I have both: 70-200 L F4 and 100 L Macro. As studio size is 100m2, I have no problem with focal length, so 70-200 is "full of dust", because I really love my 100 L Macro

 

[skitron]

Regarding 100 macro vs 100 L macro, I've seen a number of reports that autofocus of the non-L when using as a short tele is not very good. That plus the IS made the L worth the extra bucks for me. It does stink however that 3rd party macro flashes apparently don't readily fit the L...still investigating options for that...

 

[neuroanatomist]

It does stink however that 3rd party macro flashes apparently don't readily fit the L...still investigating options for that...

Although overpriced for what you get, Canon's Macrolite Adapter 67 is probably what you need. That's required for the Canon macro flashes (MT-24EX, MR-14EX), and would likely also enable any 3rd party flash that attached directly to the old 100mm macro (or the MP-E 65mm) to attach to the 100 L Macro.

 

[Aaron]

If you already have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II, it is already close to the ultimate portrait lens. Have you considered using macro extension tubes for it? The 100/2.8L macro is great, but perhaps you would complement your lens collection better with a wide-angle lens. (depends on what you have and are interested in, of course)

While I agree that a wide angle would be a nice compliment, the minimum focus distance of the 70-200L is such that the 100mm Macro L really lets you get up close shots that the 70-200L can't get, making them really a valuable combination (regardless of the added value of 1:1, which is amazing).

 

[Flake]

It does stink however that 3rd party macro flashes apparently don't readily fit the L...still investigating options for that...

Although overpriced for what you get, Canon's Macrolite Adapter 67 is probably what you need. That's required for the Canon macro flashes (MT-24EX, MR-14EX), and would likely also enable any 3rd party flash that attached directly to the old 100mm macro (or the MP-E 65mm) to attach to the 100 L Macro.

Canons system attaches via the lens hood (on compatable lenses) the adaptor gives a replica of the lens hood fixing on the lens. Third party systems use the filter thread directly, as lenses like Sigmas 105mm have a lens hood which attaches using the filter thread. I've found that buying a macro light carrier for the MT 24EX which attaches to the tripod screw is a much better solution and costs about the same as a Canon Adaptor.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canons system attaches via the lens hood (on compatable lenses) the adaptor gives a replica of the lens hood fixing on the lens. Third party systems use the filter thread directly...

No, they do not.

On directly compatible lenses (50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, MP-E 65mm, 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM), the Canon macro flashes attach via a ~58mm diamater groove around the end of the barrel, which is distinct from the hood mount (when present) and filter threads.

The 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro does not take a hood at all (the front element is recessed), and that lens has 52mm filter threads.

The MP-E 65mm's lens hood (a short, conical hood that most people don't even know exists) threads onto the lens' 58mm filter threads, and does not interfere with the flash attachment. Screwing a filter onto the MP-E 65mm does prevent the flash from being attached, because the flash mount ring cannot be pushed onto the lens far enough to reach the groove (and for me, since I use a filter on all my lenses, my solution is to mount the filter, then the Macrolite Adapter 58C, then the flash; the filter could also be screwed onto the threads on the flash mount ring itself, but too much distance between the filter and front element is bad).

The 100mm f/2.8 (non-L) has bayonet hood mount behind the groove for the flash, meaning flash and hood cannot both be attached. Like the MP-E 65mm, a filter prevents the mount ring from accessing the groove.

The Canon macrolite adapters replicate that groove for lenses that aren't directly compatible (Macrolite 67C for the 100mm L Macro, Macrolite 72C for the 180mm L Macro, and Macrolite 58C for the early PowerShot G series and the PowerShot Pro1).

If 3rd party flashes use 58mm filter threads, the solution for the 100mm L Macro would be a 67→58mm step-down ring - and since that would come from a 3rd party too (e.g. General Brand), it would be a much cheaper solution than the overpriced Canon adapter.