Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro

For anyone who has tried both I was wondering how this lens compare against the non I.S. version (which I already have). From reviews I have read the Hybrid Image Stabilization is not particularly effective at macro distances. For hand held near macro distance stuff (AI Servo mode on a 7D) will it be of much benefit to upgrade?. Also would the I.S. be of much benefit if using on a monopod for near macro stuff. Thanks for any advice.

I had both, got the non-L before the L came out and moved up ($) when the L was offered. The L feels like a better built lens in the hand, and has a nicer feel on the camera, it's got that smooth L feel - my non-L didn't have it. I leave IS off on mine, but it's there should I want to screw around with it. IQ - no difference that I can detect. They're both very sharp. I'd upgrade again. I use mine on a tripod, I don't have a monopod but I'd assume IS would be a benefit there.

I tested the for a short time before I bought mine.
The L has a bit better IQ, feels better built.

There is also a nice comparison between them you can check here.

The L has slightly better IQ (but you wont be able to detect it), slightly better bokeh and the AF is faster. The IS doesnt really help at macro distances but if you are going to use the lens as a portrait lens as well, it is very helpful

Not used the non L but the IS in the new one allows me to do a lot more than just macro work with this lens. It has now become my portrait lens and use it whenever I can get the distance between subject and myself.

I don't get how people can say the IS doesn't help at macro distances...maybe if you haven't used a non IS lens you may think this but getting a decent macro shot at 1/100th a second or so is impossible handheld with a non-IS macro lens. It's easy on the 100L

For you folks that own the 100L Hybrid IS version how many stops do you reckon its good for when using it as any other later generation Canon IS lens ? Im still debating between this Canon or the Zeiss 100mp ze to be used as a lighter alternative then packing the heavy 70-200MKII around all the time.

Regards,

If used at non-macro distances its good for 4 stops. I could shoot down to 1/15th a second reliably if I remember correctly. By my standard that's (1/160 - 1/80 - 1/40 - 1/20th) a little better than 3 stops.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12535763
I don't get how people can say the IS doesn't help at macro distances...maybe if you haven't used a non IS lens you may think this but getting a decent macro shot at 1/100th a second or so is impossible handheld with a non-IS macro lens. It's easy on the 100L

Well many don't use the IS as they are using tripods.
Most of my macro time is with a tripod and IS is off. So not everyone feels the need for the IS.

Eyal wrote in post #12538391
Well many don't use the IS as they are using tripods.
Most of my macro time is with a tripod and IS is off. So not everyone feels the need for the IS.

There is a difference between saying they don't use it and that it doesn't help. It absolutely does help.

I see no different in IQ, but the build quality is better. If you always using tripod to shoot still life, I'd suggest the non-L one.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12538404
There is a difference between saying they don't use it and that it doesn't help. It absolutely does help.

How can the IS "absolutely" help if you mount the lens a tripod?

I have shot a lot of macro.
I almost never use autofocus, (no choice with MPE65) but not with Sigma 180 either. I never use a tripod. (other than a small tabletop with a beanbag placed on top, don't actually attach to the tripod)
I have tried extension tubes with 24-105 and 300 F4 IS and in both cases I found IS useless.

I'm not unique in my technique. With an MP-E 65 the only option would be a tripod anyway.

MP-E 65 technique is attempt to locate subject in the viewfinder, not always possible. Once located it's a matter of composing then trying to stay motionless at the distance focus is achieved. Usually I try to time my shots as I rock back and forth, watching the subject coming into focus then blurring again. (DOF will be typically fractions of a mm, it's not like I can't keep still)

With Sigma 180 I manually set focus at MFD and then use same techique as MP-E65. (when shooting macro)

So the problem with IS is it tries to compensate for my movements. Back and forth it makes no difference, but up and down it compensates. (rare my body movement would be perfectly perpendicular to plane of focus) Pretty soon it runs out of available adjustment and resets causing the whole scene to jump in the viewfinder.

At lower magnifications I could see the use of IS, but for anything close to 1:1 or more, IS is no help to me.

Eyal wrote in post #12538391
Well many don't use the IS as they are using tripods.
Most of my macro time is with a tripod and IS is off. So not everyone feels the need for the IS.

Perhaps if they had IS, there'd be no need for the tripod?

I know when I got the L version with IS, the need for external support seemed to go away.

I used to use a monopod.

harcosparky wrote in post #12538773
Perhaps if they had IS, there'd be no need for the tripod?

I know when I got the L version with IS, the need for external support seemed to go away.

I used to use a monopod.

Could be.
But I know some who has an OS/IS lens who sometimes prefer using a tripod instead of hand-held.

I'm not saying that IS isn't very useful, but you can live without. Its more into what you prefer to pay and what you will actually use.