Canon 100mm L Macro

[pgsdeepak]

CR friends - I got rid off my beloved 100mm macro lens(non l) due to fungus problems. Adorama accepted the lens and offered me a small price (not worth talking about). I told them about the fungus before sending it in. Unsurprisingly their test showed more than what I thought. Anyway I felt better even though I did not get much for it.

Now the question. I ordered the L version mainly because I did not want to take a chance again with the non L again. I will take possible precautions against future fungus problems (thanks to you folks for the advice ). Is the L lens worth the extra money? I feel the pain of shedding the extra $$$( bad news is my old lens did not help cover much, I missed the refurb deal by a few seconds. The good news is I got a 10% discount from best buy and there is $50 MIR). I read a lot of reviews and blogs and everyone have only good things to say about the lens. The only other fast lens I own is the 50mm 1.4 (canon). I like the lens except the slow af. So could this be a good multi purpose lens (for portrait and a little bit of action photography). My non L AF was slow? Is this one better?

 

[tpatana]

I usually shoot with 70-200 II, today I borrowed 100L from my friend. It's interesting lens. 67mm filter is strange, but you get interesting shoots anyway.

 

[tpatana]

Here's one from today:

 

[Hjalmarg1]

CR friends - I got rid off my beloved 100mm macro lens(non l) due to fungus problems. Adorama accepted the lens and offered me a small price (not worth talking about). I told them about the fungus before sending it in. Unsurprisingly their test showed more than what I thought. Anyway I felt better even though I did not get much for it.

Now the question. I ordered the L version mainly because I did not want to take a chance again with the non L again. I will take possible precautions against future fungus problems (thanks to you folks for the advice ). Is the L lens worth the extra money? I feel the pain of shedding the extra $$$( bad news is my old lens did not help cover much, I missed the refurb deal by a few seconds. The good news is I got a 10% discount from best buy and there is $50 MIR). I read a lot of reviews and blogs and everyone have only good things to say about the lens. The only other fast lens I own is the 50mm 1.4 (canon). I like the lens except the slow af. So could this be a good multi purpose lens (for portrait and a little bit of action photography). My non L AF was slow? Is this one better?

Enjoy your new glass. The IQ from the 100L is exceptional. It's probably my sharpest lens and AF hunts a little but is really good once you get used to Macro lenses

 

[DominoDude]

... I like the lens except the slow af. So could this be a good multi purpose lens (for portrait and a little bit of action photography). My non L AF was slow? Is this one better?

Congratulations to the new 100!
I would say that the focusing speed of the 100/2.8L is really fast, especially if you narrow it down so it won't have to hunt around all the way from 30cm to infinity. I don't use mine as often as it deserves, but I still love all and everything about it.

 

[Omni Images]

I've had mine for almost two years .... I'm driving to Sydney tomorrow for a few things, and one of those things is to take my 100 F2.8L macro in to Canon Aust for a service or something ... AF is playing up no end last few times I've used it ... seems to just not work, then it does .. then it seems to just focus longer each time, but not focus back down ... then it does, then it's dead ... ?
It is a great lens .... I found it did focus fast and was sharp as.
But not sure what is going on now with it.

 

[Marsu42]

I've had mine for almost two years .... But not sure what is going on now with it.

Probably the lens waited until it was just outside warranty range :-o ... I just did a camera "break your filter" flip just like the one below :-(

Look here: http://www.diyphotography.net/murphys-laws-photography/#more-9462

 

[candyman]

I've had mine for almost two years .... But not sure what is going on now with it.

Probably the lens waited until it was just outside warranty range :-o ... I just did a camera "break your filter" flip just like the one below :-(

Look here: http://www.diyphotography.net/murphys-laws-photography/#more-9462

O yes, very recognisable.
I forwarded it to some friends.
Thanks!

 

[fragilesi]

Most things I've read suggest that the image quality between the L and non-L is actually pretty close. I've had the L version for 3 years and it is very, very good and can definitely be used for a range of things. I've used it for portrait and sport for example. The portraits are on the sharp side though which might not always be what you want . . . time for some PP if that's the case but you won't bin many for not being sharp enough.

To me the AF seems pretty fast and reliable. Certainly wouldn't rate it slow.

In short I think you are going to enjoy it!

 

[Sabaki]

CR friends - I got rid off my beloved 100mm macro lens(non l) due to fungus problems. Adorama accepted the lens and offered me a small price (not worth talking about). I told them about the fungus before sending it in. Unsurprisingly their test showed more than what I thought. Anyway I felt better even though I did not get much for it.

Now the question. I ordered the L version mainly because I did not want to take a chance again with the non L again. I will take possible precautions against future fungus problems (thanks to you folks for the advice ). Is the L lens worth the extra money? I feel the pain of shedding the extra $$$( bad news is my old lens did not help cover much, I missed the refurb deal by a few seconds. The good news is I got a 10% discount from best buy and there is $50 MIR). I read a lot of reviews and blogs and everyone have only good things to say about the lens. The only other fast lens I own is the 50mm 1.4 (canon). I like the lens except the slow af. So could this be a good multi purpose lens (for portrait and a little bit of action photography). My non L AF was slow? Is this one better?

I have owned both and this is my opinion.

Yes, the L is better. The weather sealing is a big plus to me as insects etc can often be found in rather humid conditions so that's a plus right there.
There's 9 diaphragm blades which gives more attractive bokeh.

Let's chat about the IS. Many say it's useless for close up macro but I disagree and strongly so. I picked up a tip on this forum from Neuro I believe. The IS has an "initiation kick" to it, which means that you need to give yourself about 0.5sec before pressing the shutter.

Here's another unqualified opinion: I think it handles reds and greens better.

Sharpness on a macro lens of ANY brand is amazing! I've seen Tamrons and Sigmas deliver incredibly sharp images, not to mention the EF-S 60mm. I consider sharpness on a macro lens a moot point.

Let's be honest, had the 100mm & 100mm L been the exact same price, we know which model most would take. There is a very relevant arguement though, is the L twice as good to justify twice the price?

I reckon each should decide that for themselves.

 

[ejenner]

The AF is not slow, but I don't think it is 'action lens' fast. I tried using it for shots of my son playing basketball once and it was not quite fast enough. now having said that I got the best shot I ever got of him playing basketball that game and other keepers, but a lot where the AF could not keep up (I usually use the 135L).

It's also an OK portrait lens. I'd prefer it over the 50 1.4, but as someone mentioned it can be a bit 'harsh' compared with more traditional portrait lenses like the 135L and 85L. I've heard the 70-200 II is good too. However, you can see the lenses I'm comparing it to, so that says something. Bokeh and rendition are much better than something like the 24-105 for instance.

I like the IS too. Even for handholding with a flash - much easier to the the AF point exactly where I want it. It that worth $500? Dunno. I also have mine in the dirt quite a bit. If I lost the lens I'd re-buy it rather than get the non-L, which does seem to be what most people who have the L say.

 

[Omni Images]

Up-date, I took it to Canon on Monday, they could not find anything wrong with it so gave it back to me ..
Mystery ... It seems ok again ... I found I had to jog it a bit to focus
I did use it a while ago in the rain, so thought that water was an issue ... so now I'm not sure what's going on, maybe it did get a bit stuck up there from the water, and using it for a while has freed it up ?
Now I'm thinking maybe it's my camera that is playing up.
I seems to have trouble finding focus from say a big gap .. like when it's focused down very close, then lift it up to focus to infinity, it can't seem to do it, but if I manually turn it closer, it'll all of a sudden find focus, then be fine in smaller jumps, but not so good from infinity to close, or visa versa.
I have a 1Dmk4
It also got wet that day .. well has been wet a few times, but always been wiped down fast and dried when done taking shots.

 

[martti]

I live in 21 degrees south next to a big salty ocean.
I store my photographic things in a Pelikan trunk with silica boxes since 4 years now, only taking out the things I need for the shoot. My neighbor lost his nice Nikon lenses to mold. I try to avoid the same thing happening to me.

The salt mist gets everywhere and the humidity is like in a hammam.
(But I like it)

 

[Nethawk]

For me it was like this - how often am I going to be upgrading macro lens, and how many times will I look back and wonder whether the non-L was just as good. It didn't take long to decide to spend the extra money. I don't think the 100L will ever be off my favorite lens list.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've owned several of the older model 100mm Macros, and prefer the 100L. It is not sharper, but about the same.

The big differences being the construction, IS, and fast AF. These allow me to get sharp close focus photos hand held.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I usually shoot with 70-200 II, today I borrowed 100L from my friend. It's interesting lens. 67mm filter is strange, but you get interesting shoots anyway.

What was strange about the filter you were using?? Do you mean the size? Lost of Canon lenses use 67mm.