is the "L" series worth the extra money?

EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens OR Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens

hello
im looking to get into the world of macro and was wondeing what lens to get. is the "L" series worth the extra 400? thanks for the input

Here is some interesting reading for you -

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

I've had both. The L is slightly sharper wide open and also has the IS

the question isn't "are those two things worth the extra $400?" Rather, is it worth the extra for YOU?

If I did not already have the pre-USM version from before the latest two were designed and was buying new I would go the L route.

If you are doing only macro with it and your subjects move, then IS is not necessarily needed. Or if you are going to typically use flash for only macro, then IS is not needed. But if you are going to shoot static macro with no flash, IS would be very handy. Plus if you are going to use it for more than macro then IMHO the IS could be invaluable (especially if you shoot on a crop - less so if on a FF).

All three are extremely sharp and close to each other in the sharpness department. I would not worry that into your figuring.

One day I will probably trade for the L. The two reasons are one IS, and two mine can't use a tripod ring.

Yes. It is well worth the extra money.

Why?

First off, you are buying the top of the line lenses, so with that you get superior IQ, generally faster glass, weather sealing, and better build quality.

On top of that when you buy one it will cost more but you are paying for that because it IS better than the lesser model. That is, not for every single one, but for most cases it's true.

IF I were buying new again, I'd go for the L; but, having already purchased the previous version, I can't justify the difference. The non-L is really one of the best lenses out there, especially for the price, IMO. Either way, you're getting a fantastic set of glass.

YES YES YES...

...no go buy

do you have a flash? if not i'd rather have the USM version with a flash than the 100L...

I have the non-L and it's a fantastic macro/portrait lens and I've managed fine without the IS. However, if I was in the market for my first macro lens at this focal length, I wouldn't hesitate to pick the L and pay the extra premium for the benefit of having IS.

I had the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens and sold it to buy the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens. I think it is totally worth the extra money. They both have great IQ, but the L version has a better edge with the IS especially when doing hand held shots. It also has a better build quality and weather resistant.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

It's simply a case of you get what you pay for

Of course the L is worth it. I have one and love it.

I have both. The IQ is basically the same. If you need the IS, the L version is then worth the extra money.

I have the non IS version. IQ is fantastic. IS would be nice but cranking up ISO is not much of a problem these days to compensate for low light.

Yes it is

Keep in mind that at macro distances, the effect of IS is less than at a more normal distance. In my experience, the hybrid IS on the L is worth about 1.5 stops at minimum focusing distance. Personally, I find the L worth the difference, but then again, I do more macro than any other kind of photography.

I've never owned the 100 non-L, but I do own the EF-S 60mm, which is more or less in the same league as the non-L 100mm, and in practical use, I don't see a real difference between the images from that lens and the L. I really doubt you are going to see a difference between the L and non-L 100mm lenses. The non-L is widely regarded as a superb lens. The L might be worth it, however, if you are concerned about things other than IQ.

You have not said what kind of macro you want to do. So, a couple of things to think about. First, macro is technically very demanding, and a lot of people who try it decide they really don't want to stick with it. It takes a lot of patience, learning, and frustration tolerance (lots and lots of failures). So, you might want to invest modestly until you know for sure that you like it. Second, for some kinds of macro, you will need other equipment--e.g., a flash on a flexible bracket, a tripod with a head capable of fine movements, and a remote release. The remote release is cheap, but the other stuff is not. That might have a bearing on what lens is best. E.g., I do a lot of flower macros, and for that, a tripod is essential and IS is useless.

Tripod, 60mm (no IS), halogen lighting on stands: