Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8

JayJay · 1st of October 2010 (Fri)

I'm trying to decide between which of the Canon macro 100mm lenses to choose.

The L is almost double the price but has IS and better quality. I want to use this lens to photograph flowers, insect life and jewellery, and as an added bonus, portraits. I'm really tempted to buy the non-L and put the rest towards a secondhand full frame body, but I would be interested to hear what others think.

JayJay

Shadowblade · 1st of October 2010 (Fri)

If you're shooting portraits as well, you'll benefit from the IS on the L version. Otherwise, they're pretty similar - the L is a tiny bit sharper at f/2.8 and is weather-sealed, but that's just about it.

Katalyst · 1st of October 2010 (Fri)

I had the same problem as you and I went for the non L version, as you said it saves almost half the money and if you're going to shoot portraits I'd use a tripod anyway!

shmoogy · 1st of October 2010 (Fri)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katalyst

I had the same problem as you and I went for the non L version, as you said it saves almost half the money and if you're going to shoot portraits I'd use a tripod anyway!

I had the same ideas as you and I went for the L version.

Shooting portraits with a tripod is too much work if you're out and about, and being able to shoot at 1/30 shutter speed was worthwhile for me. The IS isn't all that great for macro purposes.

That being said, I don't really enjoy using it for portraiture, so I will toss in a consideration of 100 non-L for macro, and Rokinon 85 1.4 for portraiture, all for cheaper than the L version.

ben_r_ · 1st of October 2010 (Fri)

Since I use my 70-200 2.8 IS II for portraits I never use my 100 macro for that purpose. I have owned both the 100mm macros, and ended up keeping my non-L. I didnt like the Hybrid IS system in the 100L. Sounded clunky and I didnt like how it flops around a bit inside the lens barrel when the lens is unmounted. I didnt like the build quality, IMO is was not up to L standards. As mentioned ealier, IS doesnt really help with macro photography if you use a flash, which I always do. I didnt like that I had to buy an additional $40 adapter to use the 100L with my MT-24EX flash. I didnt like that the 100L was not a standard filter size like 58mm or 77mm which ALL my other lenses match. And lastly, since the IQ for macro is very much the same, there was no gain in IQ from the 100L. Needless to say I returned the 100L and kept my non-L.

DreDaze · 1st of October 2010 (Fri)

buy the non L, and with your savings buy a flash...

ben_r_ · 1st of October 2010 (Fri)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreDaze

buy the non L, and with your savings buy a flash...

+1 to that!

rjx · 1st of October 2010 (Fri)

Yeah, you need the flash for bug macro, and other types of macro.

You could also get the 85 1.8 for portraits, and a Kenko extension tube set for macro.

Tamron makes a 60mm f/2 macro which looks pretty nice and is a good portrait length on crop sensors.

Tamron also makes the nice 90mm 2.8 macro. Don't forget Sigma's macro offerings.

I purchased the non L 100mm macro since imo the IS is a waste of money for most macro purposes.

JayJay · 2nd of October 2010 (Sat)

many thanks for so much considered advice. I've made my decision now, the Non L it will be, plus the flash. merci!

Peacefield · 2nd of October 2010 (Sat)

I never pulled the trigger on the 100 macro until L and IS. Better IQ, IS to help when I do macro w/o a tripod (which is most of the time), and I appreciate the lighter weight.

1st of October 2010 (Fri)	#1
JayJay Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: France Posts: 75 IMAGE EDITING OK	Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8 I'm trying to decide between which of the Canon macro 100mm lenses to choose. The L is almost double the price but has IS and better quality. I want to use this lens to photograph flowers, insect life and jewellery, and as an added bonus, portraits. I'm really tempted to buy the non-L and put the rest towards a secondhand full frame body, but I would be interested to hear what others think. JayJay __________________ JayJay Canon bodies: 50D, 5D Canon lenses: EF 50mm f/1.4, EF L 17-40mm, EF 100mm macro, EF L 300 f4.0

1st of October 2010 (Fri)	#2
Shadowblade Goldmember Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,976 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8 If you're shooting portraits as well, you'll benefit from the IS on the L version. Otherwise, they're pretty similar - the L is a tiny bit sharper at f/2.8 and is weather-sealed, but that's just about it. __________________ http://www.imperialstudios.biz - Landscape, Travel & Fine Art Photography Phase One iQ260 and iQ280 wanted - one for long exposures, the other for high resolution. Can't offer kidneys, but willing to trade for belly fat.

1st of October 2010 (Fri)	#3
Katalyst Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 781	Re: Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8 I had the same problem as you and I went for the non L version, as you said it saves almost half the money and if you're going to shoot portraits I'd use a tripod anyway!

1st of October 2010 (Fri)	#5
ben_r_ -POTN's Three legged Support- Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 15,536 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8 Since I use my 70-200 2.8 IS II for portraits I never use my 100 macro for that purpose. I have owned both the 100mm macros, and ended up keeping my non-L. I didnt like the Hybrid IS system in the 100L. Sounded clunky and I didnt like how it flops around a bit inside the lens barrel when the lens is unmounted. I didnt like the build quality, IMO is was not up to L standards. As mentioned ealier, IS doesnt really help with macro photography if you use a flash, which I always do. I didnt like that I had to buy an additional $40 adapter to use the 100L with my MT-24EX flash. I didnt like that the 100L was not a standard filter size like 58mm or 77mm which ALL my other lenses match. And lastly, since the IQ for macro is very much the same, there was no gain in IQ from the 100L. Needless to say I returned the 100L and kept my non-L. __________________ [ Gear List \| Flickr \| My Reviews ] /\|\ Tripod Leg Protection /\|\  GIVE a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

1st of October 2010 (Fri)	#6
DreDaze Cream of the Crop Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: S.F. Bay Area Posts: 12,294 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8 buy the non L, and with your savings buy a flash... __________________ Andre or Dre gear list flickr

1st of October 2010 (Fri)	#8
rjx Goldmember Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Santa Clara, California Posts: 2,637	Re: Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8 Yeah, you need the flash for bug macro, and other types of macro. You could also get the 85 1.8 for portraits, and a Kenko extension tube set for macro. Tamron makes a 60mm f/2 macro which looks pretty nice and is a good portrait length on crop sensors. Tamron also makes the nice 90mm 2.8 macro. Don't forget Sigma's macro offerings. I purchased the non L 100mm macro since imo the IS is a waste of money for most macro purposes. __________________ FUJI Users Unite Fewer options leads to more creativity “Photos are everywhere. You just have to know how to look.” -- Chris Weeks

2nd of October 2010 (Sat)	#9
JayJay Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: France Posts: 75 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8 many thanks for so much considered advice. I've made my decision now, the Non L it will be, plus the flash. merci! __________________ JayJay Canon bodies: 50D, 5D Canon lenses: EF 50mm f/1.4, EF L 17-40mm, EF 100mm macro, EF L 300 f4.0

2nd of October 2010 (Sat)	#10
Peacefield Goldmember Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 3,866	Re: Which macro: EF 100mm f/2.8L or 100mm/2.8 I never pulled the trigger on the 100 macro until L and IS. Better IQ, IS to help when I do macro w/o a tripod (which is most of the time), and I appreciate the lighter weight. __________________ Robert Wayne Photography 5D3, 5D2, 50D, 350D * 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400 IS, 100 L Macro, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, Tokina 10-17 fish * 580 EX II (3) Stratos triggers * Other Stuff plus a Pelican 1624 to haul it all

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Manual For Canon 100mm Macro EF 100mm 2.8 USM	tristay	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	17	18th of February 2011 (Fri) 13:05
Canon EF 100mm vs Sigma AF 105mm vs Tamron AF 90mm vs Tokina AF 100mm ALL MACRO	sandro9mm	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	23	3rd of October 2009 (Sat) 09:47
which combo would you prefer: 60mm macro + 100mm 2 or 50 1.4 + 100mm macro?	spelunker	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	9	5th of September 2009 (Sat) 14:59
(UK-Cumbria) WTB - 85mm f/1.8mm or possibly either a 100mm f/2 or 100mm f/2.8 Macro	gt_junkie	Classifieds: Buy	0	20th of December 2008 (Sat) 05:44
Seeking Tokina 100mm Macro vs. Canon 100mm Macro comparison	vjack	Canon EF and EF-S Lenses	22	29th of April 2006 (Sat) 17:46