!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...

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[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 ... 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.

 

[Marsu42]

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.

You're on full frame, right? In this case I'd agree, but on aps-c the 100mm imho is too long as a "always on" lens and thus I'm only using it for macro shots. For everything else I'd rather use my 70-300L because the 70->100mm difference is very notable.

*standard disclaimer: If money is of no concern, of course I'd advise everyone to get the L version, there are no drawbacks.

 

[pdirestajr]

The IS is incredibly helpful in framing handheld too! Even though a fast shutter speed/ flash can negate the need for IS, it wont help you when you are trying to frame close-up. To me, that has been the biggest difference between the 2.

I had the L, then sold it & got the non-L as I don't use the focal length or shoot macro too often to justify "needing" it. The non-L is wonderful too.

+ The IS is also really good for handheld video work.

 

[nicku]

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

from the IQ point of view the the two lenses have the same quality. the L series have IS, faster autofocus and improved build quality.

if you are intrested only in IQ the answer is NO. overal the L version is better and the IS is very useful in many situations.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Have just had a short play with it in the garden as the sun went down.

Canon 5D mk III EF 100mm L Macro f/6.3 1/60 ISO 2500


flowers-in-garden by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[skitron]

The way I looked at it when I bought my 100 L is I first tried a friend's non-L and liked it, but no IS and the AF not as good on non-macro. So it was a lens that was very good at one thing (macro) and useable for another (non-macro). The L with IS (and it definitely does help a bunch with handheld macro) and better AF at distance turns out to be a lens that is very, very good at two very different things. So yes, worth the price for me.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

I like Macro lenses as I like the sharpness and they tend to be pretty distortion free. I have used my Pentax 645 120 Macro lens to do panoramics: lots of detail, very sharp - the downside is that the final image is too large to save as a .tiff file or a .psd. One is about 7GB in size. Mind you that's thanks in no small part to the 645D's 40 megapixels. The RAW images are 3 - 4 times larger than the mk III's