Canon Macro lens: L vs non L

So here are my questions for all you fellow photographers out there. Should I invest in the Canon 100mm Macro F2.8 or should I get the L version with IS and weather sealing for double the price.

In my research, its the same picture quality, however my only concern is trying to hold the camera steady enough without IS to take a picture.

For everyone with the Canon Macro F2.8L lens, do you find that the IS really helps when shooting macro

For everyone with the Canon Macro F2.8 non L lens, do you find that you dont need the IS for shooting macro.

Thanks

I'm not voting, but I will give some information. It may or may not help.

I have both (sort of). I have the original EF 100mm f/2.8 macro non-USM (not the current USM version) and the L.

Usually when I do macro, I use a tripod and/or flash (in manual mode). So IMO the IS is less useful/noticeable/need​ed under those conditions. The IS is not used by me as much for macro. I do use IS sometimes for macro and it is better than not having IS. I use the the IS more for other types of photography with the lens. IQ between the two lenses is real close (the L is a bit better).

So why did I upgrade?

The original 100 macro extends when focusing (this didn't bother me - some people it bothers), couldn't take a tripod collar (I wanted this), and AF is slowish/noisy/non-full-time manual override (in macro for me a non-issue, but for non-macro this can be an issue).

The USM version came out and remedied these issues. That wasn't enough to get me to upgrade. I just mainly relegated the 100 macro to just macro, and used other lenses for other types of photography.

The 100L added IS and weather sealing (plus had all the improvements of the USM). I'm getting older, IS is a benefit for me. Now it was worth the upgrade to me. I now use the 100L for mainly macro, but also use it for other types of photography (seldom did this with the non-USM-Non-L).

If I would have had the USM I might not have upgraded. I probably would have though. I like macro and I like other types of photography. The L and IS was a luxury that at the time I wanted, and could afford.

Maybe there is something you can use in there. If money is tight and you can live with the limitations of the USM (much less than I had/have with the original version) then it is a great deal for a great lens. If you think that you will really get into macro plus use the lens for other things beyond macro, and can see many instances where the IS (*IMO the only benefit) will come in handy for you - go for the L.

* Yes, there is weather resistance. I still protect my equipment from the inclement weather with covers. It is weather resistant not proof, so not much of a benefit (to ME).


I didn't vote because each is a great lens, and not everyone needs or wants to spent the extra money on the L - I did!

Also, lenses which extend with focusing are not recommended for use with macro ring flashes, as the weight of the flash can eventually damage the lens.

mustangmike wrote in post #17013491
In my research, its the same picture quality, however my only concern is trying to hold the camera steady enough without IS to take a picture.

Thanks

Tripod. You'll need it for macro anyway. Buy the non L. Use the extra cash for a solid tripod and a focusing rail.

Tripods are pretty useless when chasing skittish bugs. That's where the IS and the flash (whether ring flash or conventional flashgun) comes in handy.

Flashes partially negate the need for IS. I say spring for the non-L and save your money. If you find that you want to upgrade later, you can recoup most or all of the money you spent. I just picked up a used but in excellent condition Canon 100mm/2.8 USM macro this morning off of craigslist. I already have a 180mm Sigma and a 65mm MP-E...but at $300 I thought it was a bargain.

What are your main subjects? I.e. for bugs, I would get neither and look at the Canon 180mm f/3.5 instead which allows more working distance. For subjects like these, you need some support anyway (I use a monopod), so IS is not that essential.

I voted non-L. As stated above, most of your macro work will be done on a tripod, so that negates the need for IS.

KirkS518 wrote in post #17013899
I voted non-L. As stated above, most of your macro work will be done on a tripod, so that negates the need for IS.

The OP never said that. Better not to make assumptions.

To answer the OP's questions squarely:

1) Yes, the IS definitely has made a difference in the number of 'keepers' when I'm shooting moving targets (active insects and wind-blown flowers) without a flash.

2) Whilst my first macro lens was not the Canon non-L but a Tokina 100mm, I did miss the IS when using such lens without a tripod.

Don't get me wrong: a tripod is essential, but many macro subjects will not sit around and wait for you to set up your tripod, slide your focusing rail, compose, manually focus and shoot.

This spider was laying in wait and thus static: shot with the L on a tripod with IS off:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

depends on what you intend to shoot. personally I don't like carrying a tripod around as a hobby shooter, so I would rather have IS. plus tripods aren't helpful for some bugs

if you can afford it, go for the L for the IS

the IS helps somewhat at macro distances, but what a lot of people don't think about is that it also helps stabilise the image in your viewfinder making focusing so much easier

i've never used a tripod for macro, good luck getting these on a tripod:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/h5hy​fR

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/iAbD​f4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/hUUf​A4

basketballfreak6 wrote in post #17013946
if you can afford it, go for the L for the IS

the IS helps somewhat at macro distances, but what a lot of people don't think about is that it also helps stabilize the image in your viewfinder making focusing so much easier

i've never used a tripod for macro, good luck getting these on a tripod

I do agree with basketballfreak6 and some others members in the same case, some bugs are impossible to do with the tripod unless you use telepathy to know where they will land, if a lot of macro are made on tripod you should know also that plenty of macro are not possible with a tripod like bees on flying flower to flower getting pollen, a colibri looking between flowers, etc ... (or i do not know how people using tripod do without using telepathy)
And it's there that the IS is really useful, like it was said, it help you in the viewfinder also

The IS will help deal with your own movement, not that of a bug. You are going to need high shutter speeds and small apertures for moving insects. IS won't help there. If money is no object, then get the IS lens. The current non-IS lens has fine optics and I wouldn't part with mine.
There is no easy answer to your question, since it depends on your finances and willingness to spend for IS. I don't know how much better the optics of the newer L lens are than mine, but the 100 F2.8 macro lens is very sharp, with excellent handling.
IS can be useful, but if it doubled the price of the lens...I am not sure if it is worth it. If you can get the IS version for a good price, like $800, then sure.

If you analyze the IQ of that lens it rivals the 135L in rich accurate colours. Also the micro contrast you get from the 100L is excellent. That lens has similar looking files like the 70-200L f/2.8IS mk2 as far as ultra sharp files are concerned.

Mine is about 2+yrs old and its literally mint like it just came out of the box. However I am always happy to know its at my disposal when I need to do macro detail shots.

IS is absolutely a bonus especially that its the new generation stabilization technology from Canon. Drink all of the coffee you want

I seldom ever take photos of bugs. If I was hardcore into macro I'd really be looking at a longer FL like the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM Lens.

If your wanting an excellent macro lens the 100L is very unlikely going to give you buyers remorse. If your really digging macro you'd probably step up to the Sigma.

The price of the 100L is more than the non L without a doubt. However you'll have a piece of mind that your keeper rate will be much higher with a lens with IS due to the long focal length.

Many people make the argument that you will need a tripod for macro shots, regardless of IS. I respectfully disagree with that viewpoint. I owned the 100L for about a year and never used a tripod. The hybrid IS system on the lens is VERY good. I was typically able to hand-hold down to 1/30 without an issue, and with elbows supported on a stationary surface, I could pull off 1/10 wide open without motion blur. Also, the bokeh of the L was slightly better than the non-L.

Bottom line, if you plan on using this lens strictly in a studio setting, then the non-L will get the job done. If you plan on using it outside of the studio, you will miss the hybrid IS system.