100mm macro vs 100mm macro

the 100mm f2.8 doesnt have the IS or the L designation as its stable mate, but im wondering if the L is really worth the extra $500...

i dont own either of them and probably dont need to. my friend just got a 5D3 and wants one in the worst way. he just cant decide the same question...

personally id rather have the L just because im a Canon snob but $500 is a chunk of change...

There's a lot of threads on this question. The L is superb, but the non-L is excellent too. The main difference is the IS and whether you need it. I'd say if you do a lot of natural light shots it's handy to have, as focused close it's hard not to get camera shake below 1/250 without IS. I do most of my macro shots using flash, so the L is not worth the extra for me.

Really, search. There have been lots of posts, and some of us have written in detail about this.

The L wasn't worth it for me as I managed to pick up a 100mm 2.8 from a forum I use for £230 It is mint, as new, always had a UV fitted & was under 12 months old so couldn't go wrong really.

I find it fine without IS especially when not using it for macro. When shooting macro I tend to prefer using a tripod anyway more for accurate focusing than camera shake though.

The L is def worth it.

Up until yesterday when the Sigma 105 EX OS was on sale for $200.00 USD less than the Caonon I would have said go that route.

The Canon "L" version also makes for a very nice Portrait lens too; worth $500.00 more?

Both make for an excellent portrait lens, but the non-L is heavy.

If you don't need the IS, the L isn't really optically better to the point that it's worth double the price.

both are superb. for Macro I use a tripod anyway, but having the IS makes for a nice all purpose lens.

does he already have a flash?...i'd rather have a flash and the non IS than the IS lens alone...

i've had them both, L feels more solid and if you need IS you need the L. No IQ difference between the two of them that I could see.

I just went through this decision a month ago. I did lots of research...as you should too just for your own sake. Anyways, your decision will come down to IS and weather sealing. I went with the L because I'm doing more than just macro with the lens. $500 more for peace of mind is worth it in my book.

Ltdave wrote in post #14801093
the 100mm f2.8 doesnt have the IS or the L designation as its stable mate, but im wondering if the L is really worth the extra $500...

i dont own either of them and probably dont need to. my friend just got a 5D3 and wants one in the worst way. he just cant decide the same question...

personally id rather have the L just because im a Canon snob but $500 is a chunk of change...

Id troll craigslist for a 100L if you could.

A macro lens is on my wish list...

I have the L, haven't used the non-L. I love the lens, both for macro and short telephoto shooting. I find the IS very useful for handheld close up shooting, of which I tend to do a lot. The IS is less useful the closer you get to 1:1 magnification, but I find that I can still get 1:1 handheld shots, if necessary (but I generally use a tripod for 1:1 if I can).

rick_reno wrote in post #14801677
i've had them both, L feels more solid and if you need IS you need the L. No IQ difference between the two of them that I could see.

I could have written this. I have both and came to the same exact conclusion.

Image quality is almost identical in my testing, but for me weather sealing was a must. IS and build were a perk, the MF ring is also nicer on my L than it was on the non L/IS I used to have.