Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?

[Botts]

I own the 70-200 f/4 IS. I've used the 70-300L, and if I were to do it again, I'd go with the 70-300L for the extra reach.

When I shot crop, the 70-200 was good, now with FF, I find it a little short. I don't often shoot sports, normally animals with that lens, so the aperture wouldn't matter for me.

One thing to consider though, is the fact that the 70-200 f/4 IS will AF at f/8 on your 5D3 with a 2x tele, whereas the 70-300L may not as the aperture would be too high on the long end. I'm not aware of anyone testing this though.

 

[knifez]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think L glass is covered by worldwide warranty where as non-L is covered by a warranty from the region you purchased the lens in, ie Australia, Asia, Eu, or America. So if you're purchased a lens of eBay from a grey market reseller, you'd be better off with the L glass. Resell value may also hold up a little better. But why would you ever want to sell the 100mm macro, they're awesome. ;D

 

[Faxon]

I have them both, and you will like either one, if you consider your needs. The IS lens often finds itself on my camera as a general purpose lens, while the older one always seemed to be dedicated for macro shots, although both do very nice portrait work on a full frame camera.

 

[Marsu42]

Thanks Marsu, I'm concerned about the weight of the 70-200/2.8L2.

Me too, and I'm a large male :-> but when I tried the 70-200/2.8is2 I immediately knew that that's a decisive difference to the also not lightweight 70-300L - the 70-200/2.8is2 creates much more torque on the wrist because the lens is longer (and next to that is not balanced on my lighter 60d body or the 6d I plan to buy).

I keep being told a strap system does some magic, though I haven't tried it - but the 70-200is2+flash-bracket+5d3-type body is way out of the "fun" league, however as a pro shooter only you can decide if the better af capability (larger aperture) and f2.8 @200mm makes it worth it to you anyway - renting it might be a good idea in this case.

 

[kobeson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think L glass is covered by worldwide warranty where as non-L is covered by a warranty from the region you purchased the lens in, ie Australia, Asia, Eu, or America. So if you're purchased a lens of eBay from a grey market reseller, you'd be better off with the L glass. Resell value may also hold up a little better. But why would you ever want to sell the 100mm macro, they're awesome. ;D

No longer the case, since late 2011 I believe Canon changed their warranty to only cover L lenses within the country they are sold from, just like everything else Canon.

 

[Eli]

I went with the L for the weather sealing, and the IS is awesome, I like to shoot handheld and have really shaky hands. But other than that IQ won't be noticeably different between the two.

 

[chas1113]

DCM:
I have had both the non-IS 100mm macro and the 70-200mm f/4 IS zoom and "upgraded" (yes, upgraded!) both to the IS macro L as well and the EF 70-300mm L. Regarding the macro comparisons, I can't tell if the IS version is actually sharper, but there is a quality difference between the images produced between the two. It may be micro-contrast, saturation or the quality of the background blur; whatever it is is, I prefer the L by far over the non-L. I mainly bought the L for the weather sealing and the IS, but found the focusing ring is much much smoother. It makes manual focus tweaking much better. I rarely use tripod for macro work and find with the L I am using it much more for portraits. Wide open it's insanely sharp and the bokeh is quite pleasing. I haven't found focusing speed to be an issue with either.

As far as the zoom comparisons: I found no appreciable difference regarding center sharpness between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L. However, I did notice edge sharpness improvements on my 5D Mark II with the 70-300. Also, I prefer the punched up colors/contrast with the 70-300 L versus the more clinical 70-200 f/4 IS. Being a petite woman, you should know that the 70-300L is considerably heftier than the 70-200 f/4. But the balance on a full frame body makes it seem less cumbersome. One last thing that you might consider (I did), the 70-300L and the 100mm macro L both use 67mm filters (like the 70-200mm f/4)...this may or may not matter to you. I have used the 70-300L indoors with a monopod, but I regard it mainly as an outdoor lens. If you NEED an indoor lens in this range, the 70-200mm f/2.8 versions are really the way to go.

 

[Marsu42]

But other than that IQ won't be noticeably different between the two.

... I've shot with both macro lenses a lot, and the bokeh smoothness and lights are visibly better on the L (larger diameter, more and rounded blades) and the sharpness difference might show with higher mp bodies and does show when you put a tc on it - I often shoot with the Kenko 1.4x. However as I wrote above, that doesn't matter for many macro shots.

I have used the 70-300L indoors with a monopod

In my experience the IS on the 70-300L is excellent and really cuts 2+ stops after a very short lock in time, so I find a monopod often not necessary, the problem simply is that for moving objects (and most things excepts rocks move a little) f4-f5.6 simply needs too high iso settings - but newer camera bodies like the 6d might do better here.

 

[chas1113]

"In my experience the IS on the 70-300L is excellent and really cuts 2+ stops after a very short lock in time, so I find a monopod often not necessary, the problem simply is that for moving objects (and most things excepts rocks move a little) f4-f5.6 simply needs too high iso settings - but newer camera bodies like the 6d might do better here."

Marsu: Agreed... 100+. I was using the monopod at a stage performance right next to a woman using a 70-200mm 2.8...my results ended up being better than hers. Not that I would recommend this lens for weddings or indoor shooting regularly. My point was (in a pinch) the 70-300mm can be used indoors with a monopod for slow movement. The IS is exceptional but mainly helps with camera shake.

 

[pj1974]

I have the Canon 100mm non-L macro, and it's great. As true macro work (1:1 or near) needs to be done on a tripod, the Hybrid IS is not that useful for macro (particularly as it's not just lens shake that needs to be accommodated for..., but certainly it CAN help in a few closeup, but not macro settings.

Furthermore, I occasionally use the 100mm non-L as a 'quick portrait' lens, and the AF 'focus range search' limiter does help here. I don't know why people complain that the nonL's AF is slow (it isn't on mine... esp on my 7D, that USM focus is really quite speedy, snappy and accurate!). I have used the Canon 100mm L macro, and it's a bit better, but really splitting hairs. If that much weather sealing is required, sure... get it!

About Canon zooms (70-300mm L vs 70-200mm f/4 L) - I would get the 70-300mm L any day. At the same focal lengths, the 70-300mm's effective aperture is ALMOST the same anyway... plus it gives you an extra 100mm. I use my 70-300mm for outside (mainly wildlife, birds, some other aspects.. .very occasionally informal sports). The IS of the 70-300mm is a tad superior to the 70-200 f/4, and the USM is basically the same.

If you are going in low light, sure the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (esp vII) is particularly useful / good.... but for me, when I am in 'low light' - I actually want REAL fast glass, and that means primes (eg f/1.4 - f/2).

Cheers. All the best with your decision / outcome.

Paul

 

[TommyLee]

IDEALLY, get the 70-200 f4 I.S. used and L-macro used
here's why I think this is best.....

FWIW
I had both macros (had two for a year..FINALLY gave-in and sold non-L) and
had the non - L 70-300 I.S. a very sharp useful lens... but not very robust physically - almost got 'L' version
and have the 70-200 I.S f4 and f2.8 II
all purchased new...
all on 5D3 now

////////
over 3-4 yrs
I did about 75% of my shots on non-L macro ...all with no tripod,
I got the L - macro and love the I.S. for hand-held macros .....chasing bugs and flowers..
IF you use a tripod, the orig macro is the same quality.... no need for I.S. version
(and PLENTY of real macro users dont use tripod)

but the I.S. version makes even better use in reduced light for portraits etc... a little help on hand-held macro

IF you get the non - L and pursue the other lens..
I do not recommend the 70-200 f4 with out I.S.
I.S. is necessary and the I.S. version has other quality improvements....(I.S. only on that one)
either get a used 70-200 I.S. f4.....or
get the 70-300L - a useful sharp range ..but slower.. that looks like a nice lens -I didnt try the L-version

there are plenty of used non-L macros at $400-450 and plenty of used 70-200 f4 I.S. at $900-1100 ..
many people moved to the f2.8 II and the L-macro.. and are selling the old, but good versions..

you can easily get those two for under $1500.. in perfect shape..
also used they are already depreciated and may well sit at that value for years....

the 70-200 f4 I.S. is the finest little lens Canon makes - IMO
I kept mine when I got the f2.8 II ... is is just so light and the sharpest of all the zooms ever made - IMO
1/2 weight of f2.8 II

depends on what you want

if you are a macro nut... and NOT tied to a tripod
then MY recommendation is the L-macro (maybe used also) and a used 70-200 f4 I.S.

just get aware of those two lenses in the various markets Craigs, Miranda or whatever..
and choose wisely...

good luck

TOM

 

[CharlieB]

I bought the non-L 100mm/2.8macro, then got a chance to try the 100mm/2.8L with IS.

I could see no difference, at all, in any real world shooting and informal testing. None. Any difference is on paper specs as far as I'm concerned.

Didn't like the IS for any of MY macro shots, as it does nothing for wind conditions and and miniscule movement you'd have forward and backward in hand held shots.... IS doesn't help that. Sure, it will greatly reduce your own lateral movement blur... so there is some marginal help, but I didn't feel bad not having the IS.

Then I got another chance to try the lens in a NON MACRO condition..... specifically some informal portraits. Folks were holding reasonably still, and light was getting low, but I was able to still shoot at f/4 and 1/20sec or even longer. Fantastic for that sort of use!

I'm a proponent of getting dual use from the 100macros, for portraits as well. There is very little practical difference in the 1 stop you get from the 100/2.0. At f/2.8, the macros are already sharp. Remember need "some" DOF just to get eyes and nose in focus... so I try to shoot at f/4 at least, preferably f/5.6. The macros excel as 100mm portrait lenses.

 

[steliosk]

if you shoot portraits get the 100 L macro
if not get the non L

if you set an aperture around f/5 on a crop body you'll get VERY nice and sharp images with great bokeh and the IS is very useful in portrait or tele mode

as for macro mode the IS is not so effective, therefore i'd choose the non-L and a good tripod and manual focus of course.

However i own the 100 L macro and it is a fantastic lens for portrait, i don't deal with macro life much, not my style but it does a great job in macro as well. The 100 L is one of the best lenses canon ever made.

here is a portrait sample

http://500px.com/photo/6713177

 

[greger]

I bought the IS 100 macro because of the 67mm filter thread mount matches my 70-200 F4 IS USM and 17-85 F4-5.6
IS USM. I haven't used my tripod to take macro shots and will now that I have a new tripod that I can get down close to the ground where my subjects are. It's a great portrait lens for pics of people and flowers. I bought it when Canon had a
$100.00 instant rebate. I have used it with my Canon 580 flash with a Gary Fong collapsable diffuser at F7.1 with good results. I would have liked to use F11 or F12 so more of the Ladybug would be in focus. Will try to do that next time.

Spring isn't around the corner yet so you have time to decide which lens to get and shop for the best deal you can get.

 

[verysimplejason]

I've got a 100 USM non-L macro and I like it. The one who sold it to me told me that he'll get the 100L instead. After a few months, I've compared his new pics with his old pics and didn't notice anything different. I guess it's just the brain behind the camera that's needed to make a difference.

 

[bycostello]

love my 100mm macro

 

[Don Haines]

I had borrowed a 100Lmacro and the non-L 100macro and went out to play with them on a 60D.

I really could not see any difference in image quality or focus when using them on static scenes or when shooting macro shots on a tripod, but when I tried to take pictures of butterflies in flight I was not able to get decent focus from the non-L lens and the L version was consistantly in focus. The L version also let me take sharp macro shots of bees.

I returned both loaners to the store and bought the L.

 

[jp121]

I've had both versions of the lens. I kept the L.

Obvious reasons, IS, weather sealing & L glass.

The problem I had with the non-L is hand-held in darker situations & keeping shutter speed over 1/100 with a T2i (limited ISO performance). Of course, it's now a different story with 5D3 high ISO. But it's also nicer for the photo to keep the ISO down, regardless of the camera's strengths.

 

[Rockets95]

My usage would be weddings plus typical insect and floral macro shots.

If you are using these lenses on a tripod for macro, in my experience you will need a tripod collar. The overhung weight will create some vibration and noticeable blur. The Canon branded collars are in the $175 to $200 range and should be factored into the purchase decision. Just my two cents.

 

[deleteme]

I do not have the L version but I use my 100 macro non-IS version almost daily. It is razor sharp and though I hear the L is a tad sharper I cannot imagine the difference would be visible except under the most rigorous testing conditions. As for IS I can see that as an advantage for the wedding work but less so for the macro work. Moreover a tripod is often used for super close work. The tripod collar is not a necessity as the lens is not that heavy but it is useful for rotating the camera without dismounting from the tripod.

The price difference is significant but it would be your call on the decision.

My feeling is that the non-IS represents the better value as what you are doing is paying quite a premium for IS.