Make the decision for me?

[CTScrivener]

Greetings all!

I am here in need of a clear decision maker regarding two lenses. This topic has been discussed before I believe but I couldn't really see a no debate answer to the question.

I am currently saving up for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro @ $475.00 NEW. I can afford this at this very moment and am dying to get a macro lens BUT!

I read quite a few times that the f/2.8L IS is MUCH MUCH MUCH better, and that the IS is by far REQUIRED for the most part.

My question is, is the IS pretty much required to take handheld photos with the lens sharply, if lit properly ofcourse.

I mean, do I really need to bring the tripod with me at all times if I might possibly use that lens (non-IS) on an outting? and will the IS version allow me to not need it?

I found the L IS version for close to $1100 so a $500-600 difference is big for me and would have to be paid little by little so....is it truly worth it to get the IS version instead of the original?

Am I going to pretty much hate myself if I get the original or am I going to facepalm myself when I get the IS version and realize its the best of the two.

I do not shoot true macro at the moment, I attempt to but this will be my first MACRO dedicated lens.

[Pete]

The f/2.8 will suit you perfectly well. Plenty of people have taken fantastic macro shots with it without having been hampered by the lack of IS.

It could be that the IS version has been developed with Live View in mind (so people can essentially use their cameras like P&S, in which case IS would be an advantage (people tend to steady the camera more when they're looking through the viewfinder and holding the camera "properly").

[CTScrivener]

Thank you! I just really don't want to spend the extra money if I am not going to literally facepalm myself and say, "OMFG, how could I have even thought of buying the non-IS lens!?"

[MrContact]

I wouldn't think IS would be that big of deal when dealing with macro... I'm usually using such fast shutterspeeds that IS really wouldn't be all that effective.

[Warl0rd]

the 100 IS is a better lens then the old version, no questions there. but it costs the double, so lets see.

a)More sharp wide open, same sharpness at small apertures.
For portrait work, good sharpness at wide apertures is good, but for macro work you want small apertures, so the new lens doesn't add much value here.

b)IS
For portrait work, having IS at 100mm will give you sharper images when using slow shutter. But for macro work, either you have the camera on a tripod (so IS is useless) or your hand holding the camera and you'll probably end up using a flash to be able to shot at f/xx and freeze the bugs with fast-enough shutter speed.

I would get the IS if I planned to use it a lot for more then macro work. IF your only reason to buy the lens is macro, then the old version is the best bang for the buck.

[CTScrivener]

Thank you very much! I was looking for a clean cut explanation like that. Yeah, I will most likely use it for more or less just macro work. I appreciate all the feedback so far, now if only the lens would come back into stock so I only have to pay $475 or maybe at worst $540.

[LowSpark420]

Yeah, that was about to be my question to you ~ where are you finding this lens so cheap?? On B&H's website you can't get it for under $650 I don't think.

Also ~ when you are buying from B&H, what is the difference in purchasing the same lens that is "Imported" for a lower cost?

[CTScrivener]

Yeah, that was about to be my question to you ~ where are you finding this lens so cheap?? On B&H's website you can't get it for under $650 I don't think.

Also ~ when you are buying from B&H, what is the difference in purchasing the same lens that is "Imported" for a lower cost?

NewEgg.com sells the 100mm f/2.8 USM non-L non-IS for $479.00 but they never have it in stock....so the next cheapest place I'm finding it at sells it for around $530-$540 shipped.

The difference between B&H's imported vs. USA is mostly the warranty. If you buy an imported lens you don't get the luxury of filling out Canon's warranty cards and having atleast a little bit of a feeling of security if something happened.

[tim]

I have the 100mm F2.8 macro (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html/BI/2312/KBID/3114), no IS. It's incredibly sharp, amazing glass. I use it for macro, with off camera flash inside a soft box, so shutter speeds of 1/250th at F8. IS wouldn't help me at all.

Which lens you should choose depends on how you want to use it. At macro distances the challenge is getting enough DOF, which means F8 or even less, F16 sometimes. IS can help a lot if you're hand held. If you plan to light your subject then it doesn't matter, the non-IS lens focuses well, slowly but well, and you'd be wasting your money with the IS lens. On the other hand if you shoot ambient, or hand held without lighting, the new lens might be helpful.

If you describe what you want to shoot, when, where, how, etc you'll get better advice :)

[CTScrivener]

Well, I plan on doing mostly macro shots with it. I'll get a lens in the future geared more towards the portrait work and the focal length I would like but just macro for this lens.

I personally use it mostly in a lightbox with controlled lighting but possibly outside handheld on a bright bright day (we only have bright days in Tampa, Florida).

Now my gf on the other hand who thinks she gets to use the lens to wants to have the option to use it anytime, if we are walking around a park or something.

I understand the lighting difference but for the most part it will all be macro shots, handheld, and most of the time pretty well lit up unless we actually get a cloudy day for a change.

I do own a tripod and I also own a monopod for the half-as good support (never tried shooting macro with it, only my niece)

I also do own the 580EX II already and am working with that alot lately.

[khanley]

I own the non-is version and get great results with it, I also shoot 99.9% of all my macro work with flash and a high f/stop which effectively stops any motion pretty well.

jut my opinion.

Thanks,

[Dalantech]

My question is, is the IS pretty much required to take handheld photos with the lens sharply, if lit properly ofcourse.

If the flash is your primary light source then IS isn't relevant -the short duration pulse of light from the flash will freeze your motion. IS won't freeze subject motion...

Depending on what you want to shoot an EF-S 60mm macro lens (http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2009/09/canon-ef-s-60mm-poor-man-mpe-65mm.html) would actually be a better choice. If you want to take more closeups than macro then you need something a lot longer. I have the 180L and with a 1.4 teleconverter it's sometimes not enough reach for some of the more skittish critters.

[khanley]

I completely agree, equipment is based on what you plan to shoot, I have thee macro lenses (and the mpe on order)and usually have 2 along at any one time, based solely on what I plan to shoot. If flowers are the intended subject, and long as you don't want photos of individual pollen grains, the 50mm macro will work fine.

Just my opinion.

Thanks,

[tim]

If I were buying now i'd consider the EF-s 60mm instead of the 100mm. I think the 100 non IS will be fine for you.

[jrscls]

I bought my 100mm macro at Newegg. Great glass and easily the best lens for the $ at their prices. Trouble is they don't have it in stock often, but when they did, I bought it immediately- good thing they sold out again in a few hours.

The lens is extremely sharp wide open on both my 40D and 5D and will make an outstanding portrait and macro lens for both bodies.

[khanley]

Also look at amazon.com, I have bought over 50% of my equipment through them and saved a lot of money. Never a problem, no tax and free shipping, unless you want it other than ground shipping.

Just make sure you are buying from amazon, not another listed vendor.

Thanks,