100L (Macro) vs non 100L (Macro)

ben_r_ wrote in post #13129440
That its a newer type of IS... Are you reading what Im typing?

How is a "new type" of IS bad? I don't follow. Maybe explain yourself.

JonK wrote in post #13129448
How is a "new type" of IS bad? I don't follow. Maybe explain yourself.

Wait huh? I didnt say it was bad, I merely stated it was a newer type of IS. Then I also said that I played with three of them and noticed that the internal free floating section inside the lens (part of the IS system) was looser and seemed to knock around whenever the lens was moved a little sharply. I have owned many other lenses from Canon both L and non and none of them moved that same way. So, my judgement on the matter was that I didnt like how it felt and decided to stick with my more tried and true 100mm macro non-L. Is that clearer for you?

ben_r_ wrote in post #13129466
Wait huh? I didnt say it was bad, I merely stated it was a newer type of IS. Then I also said that I played with three of them and noticed that the internal free floating section inside the lens (part of the IS system) was looser and seemed to knock around whenever the lens was moved a little sharply. I have owned many other lenses from Canon both L and non and none of them moved that same way. So, my judgement on the matter was that I didnt like how it felt and decided to stick with my more tried and true 100mm macro non-L. Is that clearer for you?

I guess but it's kind of like saying that the new BMW 335's are nice but when you turn them upside down the oil leaks out of the turbos.

But if that's reason for you then... so be it.

In my opinion, I wouldn't choose a macro lens for 'general purpose'.

Also, if you are moving a lens hard enough that the elements shake, then why get one with this style IS?

i own the non-IS. my buddy owns the IS. i don't see an IQ difference. the L lens is plasticky and you see alot of both resold on the sales forum probably because neither gets used as much as the buyer thought.

ed rader

You've read the posts. You've seen this info. I have both and summarize like this --

o IQ is almost identical. You'd go blind trying to see the slight advantages of the L
o Build quality of the L is much improved
o The L's .3-.5 focus limiter is very useful for macro
o The L takes a less-popular 67mm filter
o The IS is the deciding factor

I see from your gear that you don't have a 135L. I don't either. I have a 70-200mm II. I find the 100mm L substitutes for the 70-200 in situations where I want a lighter, less noticeable lens. The IS makes a big difference for non-macro use. If the 85L or 135L is in your future, or if you have no interest in a long walk-around/portrait, I'd go for the non-L.

I've read about the noise, seen a couple of reports about it. My L copy is silent, no noise that I can hear.
iS is very useful on this lens when doing macro shots. It's my most used lens.

rick_reno wrote in post #13129803
I've read about the noise, seen a couple of reports about it. My L copy is silent, no noise that I can hear.
iS is very useful on this lens when doing macro shots. It's my most used lens.

My 100L has made the noise a few times when making significant movements while focusing. Otherwise it's quiet. Ditto on the most use lens.

Downs Photography wrote in post #13129065
I wanted to use this as a all around lens,...

I never try my 100L as walk-around, but I use my 135L + 5D2 as walk-around and work very well for me.

I think that 100mm Macro will do the job easy.

Personally, I like the IS as most my Macro shoots are handheld.

From what I read, most Macro Prime lenses are great; so go for the one's price you feel most comfortable.

rick_reno wrote in post #13129803
I've read about the noise, seen a couple of reports about it. My L copy is silent, no noise that I can hear.
iS is very useful on this lens when doing macro shots. It's my most used lens.

Same - silent as can be

JonK wrote in post #13129525
I guess but it's kind of like saying that the new BMW 335's are nice but when you turn them upside down the oil leaks out of the turbos.

But if that's reason for you then... so be it.

Every lens is designed to be handled, each lens is placed on a vibration table and run through a multi-axis routine during development. You are not going to exceed the shock limitations of the lens by shaking it with your hand. Your hand is not capable of providing significant shock because the braking/acceleration takes too long. Now, the delivery guy, he has the ability generate some Gs.

cedew wrote in post #13129979
Every lens is designed to be handled, each lens is placed on a vibration table and run through a multi-axis routine during development. You are not going to exceed the shock limitations of the lens by shaking it with your hand. Your hand is not capable of providing significant shock because the braking/acceleration takes too long. Now, the delivery guy, he has the ability generate some Gs.

Sure - but I hardly consider "shaking the lens" a scientific test and given how many stops IS can cut (remember, the whole point of IS is to move the element enough in any direction to counter shake....) then its supposed to be able to move. Having elements that don't move in an IS section is silly.

I agree and I don't see any other posts contradicting your statement.

Thanks everyone!

I had the L and now have a refurbed non-L. Why? Because I just didn't use it much and when I do I usually use flash. I also don't need weather sealing. HTH