Macro lens question

I have a Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens that must be at least 15 years old. It's the one that extends when focusing. Here's a link to the Canon Camera Museum...http://www.canon.com …macro/ef_100_28​macro.html

I'm thinking of buying a new macro lens and am wondering, just in terms of optical quality, if the newer Canon 100mm macro lenses are better? If so, how much better? I love the optical quality of the lens I have...so maybe I'm just looking to spend money unnecessarily.

I've had both, I'm not sure I'd buy the L for any addition optical quality, but I like the feel of the lens and the IS.

If you don't have the need for the IS of the L and/or the AF speed of the newer USM motor compared with the classic micro motor of the older one, why spend the money? I don't know about the IQ difference between your version and the newer ones, but between the newer L and non-L, there's hardly any, infact none.

I have never used the lens you currently have, however I have owned both the newer 100 2.8 Macro USM and the 100L IS and I can tell you IQ wise the L is not worth it nor IMO is IS that useful for macro work as I only shoot it with a flash anyway for which IS isnt much use. If you dont have a macro flash right now but are thinking of getting the 100L, do yourself a favor and pick up a good condition used 100 2.8 Macro USM and use the rest of the money you would have spent on the 100L to buy the Canon MT-24EX twin light flash! f/22 and smaller will never be a problem again AND you will get all that DOF youve been craving!

Hey Alex, ask yourself a question: what else do you need in a macro lens? Or what you are missing?
If you can't figure it out, spend the money elsewhere. Or consider renting or borrowing the newer 100mm macro lens from somebody to help you decide for yourself. But if everything looks satisfactory to you in your current setup, I wouldn't bother to look for ways to spend an extra dollar

Some people prefer that earliest version of the lens, the one you have, because the front element is recessed a bit so that it hardly needs a lens hood.

The hood for the USM lens is very large, mostly so that it can be reversed for storage. I doubt you'd see a great deal of difference in IQ with either of the newer lenses. Both would give you faster AF, might be a little more generally useful for non-macro stuff, too.

The IS of the latest version might help out about one step of shutter speed at 1:1, but should give 3 or 4 steps worth at non-macro distances.

If you happen to be using the lens on 7D, there's a special AI Servo macro focusing mode that's unique to the camera, when it recognizes certain Canon macro lenses. The two latest 100mm are among the lenses where this will work, but I don't think the earliest model will.

I think your lens has a focus limiter, doesn't it? The later cameras do, too. There might be some differences in the limiter, but I only have the USM lens so really can't compare.

Can your lens be fitted with a tripod mounting ring? The two latest cameras can.

Yes, the Twinlite and Ringlite can be mounted to the USM and the L/IS versions... I don't know if it can be fitted to your version. There's a groove around the front of the lens that the flash mount clips onto. This isn't necessarily a big deal with the MT-24EX... With the Twinlite I use a Lepp-Stroboframe dual flash bracket instead. It gives me much more flexibility, positioning the flash heads where I want them. I think it might be more critical for someone mounting the Ringlight (but I don't use a Canon RL, so can't really say for certain).

I have both the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro and the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. The original lens has a very long throw focus ring that makes manual focus really nice. The USM version isn't as nice for manual focus. However most of the time it doesn't matter since you preset the focus distance and then move the camera and then maybe touch up the focus slightly. Both have the groove for the macro flashes.

The USM lens does make it possible to use a tripod collar which is nice for being able to rotate the lens around its optical axis without changing anything else but Canon's very expensive tripod ring has a plastic part that attaches to the USM lens for the interface to the tripod ring. Unfortunately this combination of materials has a lot of stiction so it is a bit annoying.

The older lens is smaller too so it takes up less bag space. The main difference between the lenses if features, not optical quality. The image quality is very similar between the lenses. The USM lens might be slightly sharper wide open, but macro shots are mostly stopped well down anyway.

I posted a picture of the two lenses side by side a few years ago in the lens pictures thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …?p=8849408&post​count=2662

Ive seen a great review on both of these lenses, the way i see it, mine will be on a tripod for my macro photography, why spend double for IS and a red ring, certain things are NOT needed and those 2 are not.

they have equal IQ and bokeh, just one has weatherseal and IS :P

I have non is. While I love it for macro and portrait, I shoot hand held quite a bit and wonder if IS would come in handy when slower speeds necessary.