!00mm macro L or non L

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Another playing around with the lens indoors with a 20 pence piece

This is at a 1:1.5 ratio

f/10 1/60 ISO 500


20pence by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[Marsu42]

Another playing around with the lens indoors with a 20 pence piece

You didn't mention which lens it is - L or non-L - and rightly so: For indoor macro shots with a tripod it doesn't matter at all. So for these kinds of shots, it's more economic to get the non-L and a couple of flashes for the same price of the L version.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Another playing around with the lens indoors with a 20 pence piece

You didn't mention which lens it is - L or non-L - and rightly so: For indoor macro shots with a tripod it doesn't matter at all. So for these kinds of shots, it's more economic to get the non-L and a couple of flashes for the same price of the L version.

All without tripod with the L version.

 

[recon photography]

i think its one of those things where you should choose the cheaper one because its fine but once you use the more expensive you buy it anyway the 100mm non is a fantastic lens but the 100mm l is perfect at what it does easily one of cannons sharpest lenses even at 2.8 plus the 9 rounded aperture blades ensures smooth bokeh balls at all apertures. Having said that if its actually twice as much where you live probably go for the non L since you obviously don't NEED the features of the L otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question

 

[aldvan]

I have the L versio but I can't compare it with the non-L version.
As many stated before me, the L is a very good lens, that I use very often as standard lens, since I like go around catching details of the world around me (a beautiful dish or drink, a flower, the texture of a stone wall etc.), obviously without a tripod.
By the way, prices never follow the same curve of performances, in photography as in every technology. To get ten percent more power in a car you will spend well more then ten percent...

 

[infared]

I own the L with IS. Never owned previous versions. I have to say, I think that the lens is one of the (if not THE) sharpest lenses that I own. I was a little put off by the thought of spending $1000 on a lens with a plastic barrel....but in retrospect the lens performs so well and it is nice and light in the bag and definitely has a quality feel to it! (did I just say that? LOL~).
Now...since the lens is soooooo sharp and has incredible IS ...I find my self using it for MUCH more than macro photography. ...but lets face it....most macro photography is so demanding with high DOF needed that you really do need a tripod, flash etc...but I have been able to push the limit with this lens of what I can shoot close up, on-the-fly because of the IS.
I REALLY like this lens. No regrets in my purchase.

 

[Eimajm]

I have the non-L version and have IS - my tripod. Do you need IS? - well how much do you want to ditch the tripod - if you don't like carrying a tripod around or it affects your creativity then get the L lens. Simple as that.

 

[Marsu42]

I have the non-L version and have IS - my tripod. Do you need IS? - well how much do you want to ditch the tripod - if you don't like carrying a tripod around or it affects your creativity then get the L lens. Simple as that.

And some additional piece of information who hasn't got either lens yet:

* IS doesn't help if shooting at non-optimal light and iso 100 (i.e. lowest noise, highest iq and ability to crop to 100%) because shutter speed still is too low except when shooting with open aperture - but this is far in between for me because the dof is so thin at macro distances.

* IS doesn't freeze the world around you - when shooting butterflies, I'm usually at or above 1/1000s - at these speeds, IS only helps with framing, not with the shot itsself (I know this from my 70-300L).

 

[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.