EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM or EF 100 f/2.8

Debating on which route to go...was thinking the IS would be better as it would help with me taking pictures. Don't expect it to help with subject matter but rather (in my old age) to stabilize everything. Substantial price difference between the 2 and was curious as to your thoughts on this matter. Please advise with any information you can so I can make the most fruitful decision.

regards,

john

Yes, there is a substantial price difference but IMHO I feel it is worth it especially when you indicate a need "to stabilize everything".

I've used both and settled on and used the 100 f2.8L IS USM for many years now. The image stabilization and quality of glass is well worth the extra coin. Good stable handheld shots are a huge asset when chasing insects around the garden. Also you'll find some terrific deals around on the used 2.8L IS USM versions. They're going for $700ish Aus ATMO, which is damn good.

Heya,

Depends on what you're using it for and if you're shooting it wide open or stopped down.

There are also pretty much as-good alternatives to fill the price gap difference from Tamron & Sigma with stabilization.

Very best,

I am going with the IS. I want this lens mostly for Macro but it will come in handy for other shots. I am learning that IS is a must for me.

The price difference is minor. When I first had to make this decision 5 years ago, the difference in price between the 2 was around $400. I got the "cheaper" one and am extremely happy with it. Today, however, the difference in price is $149!! I LOVE the non "L", but for a buck fifty, I'd definitely get the "L".

Unless...………………….You want to wait and see what happens with this lens. The "L" has been this lower price for quite a while now, I've been paying attention. It is 10 years old now, dropping the price so low may mean a new version is on the way. It's also possible they'll stop making it except for a mirrorless version????

That happens all the time. I gave up and just buy what I want to use when I can afford to do so.

I agree. I have no regrets with the purchase, great lens. I tend to do a lot of research on things before I pull the trigger. Almost everyone was convinced the only difference between the 2 was the IS, therefore you were paying $400 just for the IS. The IQ of my lens is stunning, and that is with shooting old crop sensor technology. I just went from 2 7Ds to 2 6Ds, meaning I can't wait to see my results on a FF sensor.

The only reason I've been paying attention to this price reduction lately is because my 100mm needs to go to Canon for repair. If they come back with a quote higher than maybe, let's say $400, I would probably not do it and just get a new lens.

I do know what you mean about getting what you can, when you can. I came up with a strategy. I start by purchasing a $25 or $50 B&H gift card every payday. Once I get some decent $$, I decide what my next purchase will be. Not only do prices & sales change all the time, B&H specials & bundles also change all the time. When I find what I need at the price I want, I buy it. Then, of course, I start buying gift cards all over again.

I can't recommend either one because they are both 100mm lenses. You should choose a macro lens based on what the primary light source is going to be. More info here.

P.S. IS only stabilizes your motion, and not the subject...

For someone getting started what would be the best reasonably priced flash or light source for taking insect macro pictures

What camera do you have? I like to stick to name brand flash units. Get the flash close to the subject and just about any flash will work just fine.

Looking at getting the f2.8 L lens as my first macro lens are they as good as pepole say they are for the money over the non L lens

roycobb4570 wrote in post #18913650
Looking at getting the f2.8 L lens as my first macro lens are they as good as pepole say they are for the money over the non L lens

I don't recommend macro lenses in the 100mm range. If you're using natural light as the primary light source then you'll wish you had more working distance. If you're using a flash then a macro lens in the 60mm range is better, cause you need to get the flash as close to the subject as possible to get good diffusion and the keep the flash duration as short as possible (easier to freeze motion and get sharp images). So the working distance of a 100mm macro lens will work against you if you use a flash.

I have the non L version and I love it. Today, however, I would choose the L version. When I purchased mine the price difference was $400, today it's now only $150 more for the L. The research I did before hand (which was a lot) lead me to many people saying the picture quality was slightly better with the L version. So I thought I would be paying an extra $400 just for IS. I think, if purchasing today, the IS would be worth $150.