100mm macro vs 100mm macro

DreDaze wrote in post #14801618
does he already have a flash?...i'd rather have a flash and the non IS than the IS lens alone...

I agree, I can't see doing any serious amount of shooing macro without a flash.

I have the L and as I mostly shoot macro handheld it's invaluable for me. They have similar optics so the IQ should be the same anyway, but the IS when shooting portraits makes it so much easier to handle.

windpig wrote in post #14805955
I agree, I can't see doing any serious amount of shooing macro without a flash.

I am in major agreement!

Virto wrote in post #14801388
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.

Actually, the non-L is lighter and a little smaller than the L version.
I have the Non-L. I also have a number of other lenses. I find the non-L handles very well and is really sharp. I don't do photography for a living, and don't have $500 to pay for IS.
All of the macro lenses will be very sharp stopped down, and that is how you would want to use them for macro. For regular stuff, I have an 85f1.8. You can get the 85f1.8 and the 100f2.8 macro lens for less than the cost of the L.

I own the non-L version and it's an outstanding lens. I don't feel let down at all by going that route. If you need the IS or weather sealing that's another story. But if not, don't sweat it.