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

I understand the points brought up as to why they don't have the L and need weather sealing, etc. That's why canon offers both options. I just want to remind everyone that this lens is KILLER (and I am sure the 100mm/2 and 100mm/macro non-L as well) for general medium telephoto work other than macro shots!

ben_r_ wrote in post #13129411
Nah, I tried two and one in a local shop. Others have mentioned it too. Its a newer style of IS, which is why its called Hybrid IS and I think it uses cheaper components. The whole lens IMO was built cheaper. You can feel it compared to other L lenses. The 100L is very plasticy.

Yup, mine does the same thing. Almost feels like there's an element loose in there. But the lens works as it should...

The lens is fine for telephoto work as long as you have good light. Once the light dims, the AF suffers. Junior, at weddings, I only use this lens for ring shots, other detail shots, and close ups of the makeup being applied, that type of shots. Otherwise, it stays in the bag. I would much rather use the 85 1.8...