I currently have the standard USM version, but I am considering selling that this springtime and putting that money towards the L version of the lens. My question is, aside from the IS, is there a lot of difference? Is it worth the $400 or so to upgrade to the IS version? Any reasons I shouldn't upgrade?
How much of a difference is there between the 100mm Macro and the 100mm L Macro?
- Thread starter DavidUSMC
- Start date
Pros of the IS L:
- IS
- 9 rounded aperture blades vs 8 not rounded (better bokeh)
- weather sealing
- hood and bag included
Pros of the non-IS
- 58mm filter vs. 67mm
- price
- (slightly) lighter
- IS
- 9 rounded aperture blades vs 8 not rounded (better bokeh)
- weather sealing
- hood and bag included
Pros of the non-IS
- 58mm filter vs. 67mm
- price
- (slightly) lighter
Upvote
0
Johan summed it up. I've owned both versions of the lens and the new one isn't that big of an upgrade. What does make a difference though is the IS. It makes framing a photo so much easier. If you are just using it on a tripod though I wouldn't say it's worth the money to upgrade. Just my 2 cents.
Upvote
0
I owned the IS one back in 2011 then I sold it. In 2013 I bought the non-IS. In 2014 I bought again the IS one only because of IS and I sold the non-IS. The IQ is almost the same. The bokeh of IS version is better. For me the IS one definitely worth the 400 !
Upvote
0
I had the same decision to make 2 or 3 years ago:
IS would have been nice but the L grade macro lens
was at least 2x the price (420 vs. 899 Euro at the time).
The wonderful EF 2.0 100 was in my bag before. This
lens has some advantages compared to both 100mm macros: very compact,
high max aperture, very fast and reliable AF, and last but not least:
great image quality.
The center sharpness of the L lens is better,
but corner sharpness isn't after different tests,
at full aperture and f/4 - I very often use near open
aperture and place objects far from center/need the
full frame sharp (landscape etc.).
CAs are better for non-IS lens ...
Less flares for non-IS lens with similar contrast in contralight situations ... perhaps the less
complicated design without IS system/elements.
non-IS has some distortion - IS-version has practically none but has not mattered to me
(landscape, macro, - in case of architecture might be managed in PP)
Vignetting is less visible in the non-IS version ...
I skimmed the following tests/pages:
Lens qualtity at the digital pic: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=2
Flares at the digital pic: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=3
Review of photozone (24 x 36):
non-IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1
IS / L: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1
If I hadn't had the EF 2.0 100 before I might have bought the L version (with IS compensating
some aspects of larger aperture) and welcomed the weather sealing.
But for my situation it was (up to now) a good choice.
IS would have been nice but the L grade macro lens
was at least 2x the price (420 vs. 899 Euro at the time).
The wonderful EF 2.0 100 was in my bag before. This
lens has some advantages compared to both 100mm macros: very compact,
high max aperture, very fast and reliable AF, and last but not least:
great image quality.
The center sharpness of the L lens is better,
but corner sharpness isn't after different tests,
at full aperture and f/4 - I very often use near open
aperture and place objects far from center/need the
full frame sharp (landscape etc.).
CAs are better for non-IS lens ...
Less flares for non-IS lens with similar contrast in contralight situations ... perhaps the less
complicated design without IS system/elements.
non-IS has some distortion - IS-version has practically none but has not mattered to me
(landscape, macro, - in case of architecture might be managed in PP)
Vignetting is less visible in the non-IS version ...
I skimmed the following tests/pages:
Lens qualtity at the digital pic: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=2
Flares at the digital pic: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=3
Review of photozone (24 x 36):
non-IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1
IS / L: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1
If I hadn't had the EF 2.0 100 before I might have bought the L version (with IS compensating
some aspects of larger aperture) and welcomed the weather sealing.
But for my situation it was (up to now) a good choice.
Upvote
0
Hi David!DavidUSMC said:
There was a similar thread before. Maybe you'll find it. I don't have the time searching now.
I have owned the non-L and switched to the L version like you plan to do. I used both on FF not on APS-C bodies.
IQ:
Maybe you'll find some advantage for the L in test chart shooting, nut if you are not a total pixel peeping geek I'd say it has no effet in real life shooting. This was something I was a little bit disappointed about.
Built:
The L version id definetly better built and that "engineered plastic" is really tough.
And of course it has sealings that increase (but not to 100%) protection against water and dust.
I think Marsu42 posted about some bad experiences with the non-L.
IS:
That and the built quality was the main reason to me for switching.
You can do/try a lot shots handhold where otherwise a tripod was needed. (You still might need one in many cases)
Focus limiter:
The L has one with three instrad of two positions: 0.3-0.5m, 0.5-max, 0.3-max.
If you do a lot of macro you wouldn't want to miss the 0.3-0.5m which the non-L does not have.
If that's worth the extra money? For me it is.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 91053
Guest
I tried the L not long after it came out and was suitably impressed, it is a lovely lens!
However so is the non-L. IQ wise I could find no difference in real world usage, I shoot from a tripod so IS was of little consequence though the 3 position focus limited might be handy if and when I am not focusing manually (rare). The extra build quality is nice but it doesn't affect the images and 3rd party lens hoods (for the non-L) are cheap so no great advantage there.
If you are primarily shooting Macro from a tripod then I would (and did) go for the non-L version - it is simply excellent for the money. If you are doing more general photography and, especially, handheld Macro then the L is the better option in my opinion. They are both excellent lenses but the L version is more adaptable/versatile, the difference is not worth the price for my personal uses but it may well be for yours.
However so is the non-L. IQ wise I could find no difference in real world usage, I shoot from a tripod so IS was of little consequence though the 3 position focus limited might be handy if and when I am not focusing manually (rare). The extra build quality is nice but it doesn't affect the images and 3rd party lens hoods (for the non-L) are cheap so no great advantage there.
If you are primarily shooting Macro from a tripod then I would (and did) go for the non-L version - it is simply excellent for the money. If you are doing more general photography and, especially, handheld Macro then the L is the better option in my opinion. They are both excellent lenses but the L version is more adaptable/versatile, the difference is not worth the price for my personal uses but it may well be for yours.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
