The 100L 2.8 macro for weddings

Why should I get this one over the non L? Thanks in advance.

What are your plans for the lens?

^Agreed.

Just ring shots? Other stuff?

Honestly, I only ever use the 100L for macro shots...not just ring shots, but also close up of makeup being applied, etc. I think the IS is useful, but honestly, it's not a deal maker or breaker. I only use it for a handful of shots, but it does those extremely well.

Are you set on other lenses? If not, I would just get some extension tubes.

I use it for ring shots and for shots like these...

^ HOLY S well done shot Nick

scorpio_e wrote in post #13127764
^ HOLY S well done shot Nick

Thanks.

Again, I use it for just a handful of shots. I am thankful that I have them when I shoot these, but because I don't use the 100L a whole lot, I sometimes wonder whether it was worth getting the L version.

Of course it was...it's an "L".

I was going to buy a macro lens, but when I could get extension tubes combined with my high quality lenses for cheap, it was a no-brainer.

I had some tubes, but it didn't work out the way i thought it would. I had to get close and it didn't even focus the way I thought it would. I wanted to use them for ring shots.

Downs Photography wrote in post #13129003
I had some tubes, but it didn't work out the way i thought it would. I had to get close and it didn't even focus the way I thought it would. I wanted to use them for ring shots.

What was the problem?

Tubes worked fine for me. If you are using them for ring shots, then I would strongly consider against the 100L, because I know you might need other lenses or other gear right?

And isn't the whole idea to "get close"?

When I take ring shots, I manually focus. Or move the lens until I can see it is in focus. I'll use Live View at times too, to make sure it's in focus. I was planning on using the 100L also as a portrait lens, but I've never used it in that capacity. However, I really like using the 100L for getting ready shots, like the one I posted above.

I wanted to use it as a reception detail lens and also portraits. It will be my jack of all trades lens lol

I use tubes. They're ok for static ring shots, but not much else. They're a bit slow and annoying to focus with. I'll probably get a proper macro lens some time. I had the Canon 100 F2.8 non-L, but when I switched to the side of truth and light I didn't buy another one because of costs.

I asked once to do a close-up makeup shot. Makeup lady went nuts in me, basically saying to stay away from her and be happy she is letting shoot... Now I just stand back. Seeing your shot will make me try again

I never had tubes. Nor did I ever have the earlier non-L version of the 100 macro. I'm told it had L-grade IQ, but the IS is what helped to make the 100 L attractive to me.

That said, I find it almost redundant of my 85 1.2. The two lenses are each better at something different, but either could sub for the other in a pinch.

Peacefield wrote in post #13129945
I'm told it had L-grade IQ

It does. It's a very sharp lens, with great accurate AF. The AF is bit slow, but in good light it's fine. At macro distances you have to MF anyway.

Thanks everyone!

tim wrote in post #13129982
At macro distances you have to MF anyway.

I've found that the AF at macro distances to be very effective on the L version (after very careful microadjustments). That said, I'm not in super-crazy close, just enough to do things with the rings, etc. I'm sure there's a limit to when you need to switch over to MF, but I haven't hit it yet for my purposes.