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

[hopopotamus]

I would like to use one of these 2 lenses for wedding photography mainly. After reading ton of reviews it looks like both options are excellent and give good results, however I don't have time to set up tripod just to shoot the rings for example. I never used micro lens so I'm hoping to get some advice. Basically it comes down to the price. Do you think IS worth double the price, also if you think I should be looking in to some other lenses please let me know.
Thanks in advance.

 

[hyles]

get the 100 f2 USM, really sharp, really nice bokeh, fast AF and 1 stop faster then the macro lenses. For portrati it is much better.
Diego
PS I think it is even cheaper

 

[keithfullermusic]

i have the regular and i love it. IS is not worth double the price in my opinion - not even close.

if you don't have a nice camera, then the IS will help out a lot more, but with my 5Diii I can shoot at high enough ISOs to avoid camera shake. If there is shake, its because the subject is moving - and no IS is going to help that.

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.

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.

here is a cropped shot with the 1002.8 (@f/4.5) from a wedding i did last weekend. it was handheld.

 

[Wilmark]

It may not be worth the extra. I have the IS and its great. Bryans site say that it does everything better than the non IS (I have never used the non IS). I use it with a tube to get in even closer. In all its about a stop worth of shake and not the amount advertised. But you always pay a premium to get the best, as always with canon.

 

[robbinzo]

I own the L 100mm macro. It is sharp at all apertures. It focuses very quickly on my 550D, despite the aging auto-focus system. I believe it has a greater no. of aperture blades, so the bokeh is slightly better than the non-L. I get unbelievably good bokeh even on a crop sensor.
The L series also frames the subject slightly tighter than the non-L. I've compared it to my 28-135mm zoom lens and it also frames the subject tighter than at 135mm!
You are not just paying extra for the IS. The L is top quality in all areas.

 

[Random Orbits]

Depends on how close you want to get. TDP states thall all macros need more light (up to 2 stops) as the magnification ratio increases to 1. I never measured it myself, but it definitely happens. Try your 70-200 with IS off for a typical ring shot (with typical ambient light levels) and determine what your shutter speed is. If you're ok shooting at 1/4 to 1/2 of that speed handheld, then go for the non-IS.

 

[sawsedge]

I have the non-IS model and I love it, but I use a tripod for most closeups. Bokeh is excellent on the non-IS model. IQ-wise you can't make a bad choice.

If I didn't have time for a tripod, I'd certainly opt for the IS model. If you are getting paid and the clients want ring pics, I think it'll pay for itself.

 

[keithfullermusic]

If have all the money in the world to blow for lenses, then I agree with what some have said about getting the IS. but, with a somewhat steady hand you should easily be able to get sharp shots at 1/200. If you're using a flash, then no problem whatsoever. My main point about the IS and macro shots is that usually what is moving is your subject, not so much your hand. If you're only shooting rings, then obviously subject movement isn't a problem, but bump up your ISO a little, that's one of the reasons why you probably bought that 5D.

 

[ZEROrhythm]

I own the L 100mm macro. It is sharp at all apertures. It focuses very quickly on my 550D, despite the aging auto-focus system. I believe it has a greater no. of aperture blades, so the bokeh is slightly better than the non-L. I get unbelievably good bokeh even on a crop sensor.
The L series also frames the subject slightly tighter than the non-L. I've compared it to my 28-135mm zoom lens and it also frames the subject tighter than at 135mm!
You are not just paying extra for the IS. The L is top quality in all areas.

But is that RED ring worth double the price? I doubt it. If you need some weather protection maybe, but this lens isn't going to make you take pictures any better than the regular 100mm macro, just like every L lens out there, you pay for that premium and the RED ring, but it won't make you any better than what you are.

 

[iaind]

Hand held the 100L wins hands down. The 50% premium I paid for H-IS, weather sealing and newer larger optics over an 9 yo design was worth it.

 

[ZEROrhythm]

Hand held the 100L wins hands down. The 50% premium I paid for H-IS, weather sealing and newer larger optics over an 9 yo design was worth it.

But you didn't answer the one million dollar question. Is it going to make you take any better pictures over the 100mm macro?

 

[pdirestajr]

I've had both at one time or another. Neither now- traded for 135 f/2 as I don't shoot macro.

With that said, both images were sharp and beautiful. What I do like about IS, when handholding, is the steady VIEW FINDER. Makes framing something small and really close up so much easier. I never needed IS cause I always used flash or fast shutter speeds, but that "sticky" frame is really sweet.

For what it is worth, I always got sharper images from the non-L / non-IS version. But sharpness is crazy overrated. That word is thrown around too much IMO.

If I was running around nature chasing bugs I'd get the L for IS and the weather thing. If I was in studio/ more controlled environments, I'd save the money, buy the non-L and spend the rest on a flash.

 

[CharlieB]

I have used both. The L is the better of the two optically, but by only scant margins, as the non-L is deadly sharp as it is.

Is it worth all the extra money... hmm.

You get a hood with the L, and I think the hood is about a $40 item. You get a case with the L, again some cost with that.

The rest is the IS, and better build quality. The non-L is not built badly at all. The old non-USM one... er... not as nice, it grows with focus etc. But the USM non-L is a fine lens.

I would not justify the expense on the optical quality alone. If you can justify the IS... then by all means, its worth it.

The only thing similar I have is the 24-105 (similar focal length at 105), and find with some effort and deliberate concentration, I get sharp results fairly easily at 1/40-1/60 range of speeds. Keep in mind macro shots - very close - you're shooting darker due to magnification, and you also will show any motion blur more easily.

If somebody said - you gotta do the rings, but cant use a tripod, I'd use a monopod - which would be up to the task in almost all cases.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

L has a tiny bit better micro-contrast and pop

maybe the IS could help for what you are doing?

the L is a little faster at the same aperture so it lets in a bit more light and has a bit less dof at f/2.8 than the non-L which also might be a bit better for you at times

then again double the price is a lot
and maybe other lenses are even more fitting than either, dunno

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

One additional thing to keep in mind is that with the new 5D3/1DX AF systems the 100 USM is a much lower class AF than the 100L so it doesn't have usage of as many cross type points, all the outer cross points turn into single direction with the non-L.

 

[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.