it's official, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Got mine as well. I am very pleased with it so far.

The sharpness wide open is very good. Pairing this with IS and wide open being 2.8, I suspect this "macro" lens will spend some significant time on my 5D for general shooting. Both 24-70 at 70 and 24-105 don't even come close to this one sharpness-wise.

AF is nice, quick and quiet in decent light. But above ISO 2500 it starts hunting and is not snappy anymore. Overall 24-70's AF is noticably better.

Build quality is good, yet somehow I feel that 24-70 or 24-105 are beefier, and I am not just talking about weight here . It very subtle difference though and doesn't affect 100L's operation-wise.

Just sold my 100mm 2,8 standard macro. That means I get to order this beauty very soon

My standard 100mm has been a dream to work with, so I'm hoping this new lens lives up to my expectations...

I think it may be a waste of money. I have the "non IS" version and like someone said it's always on a tripod and pics are clear and crisp all the time.

3thirteen wrote in post #8789489
I think it may be a waste of money. I have the "non IS" version and like someone said it's always on a tripod and pics are clear and crisp all the time.

Yes, for someone with your needs, it would be a waste of money. I think the upgrade only makes sense if you need IS or weather sealing. The IS works beautifully for handheld telephoto work (I tested it), and the weather sealing can mean getting a shot or not in some situations. However, if you don't need either of those things, then a slight improvement in IQ probably isn't worth the premium you'll pay for the L model.

How is the 100 is as a lightweight tele/portrait+ macro combo. Maybe with 1.4 TC on crop?

I have cleaned up in my mediocre lens setup, and want fewer but higher grade lenses. My longest now is sigma 50mm 1,4. I would like this lens mostly for macro.

Or is a 70-200 f4 is more usable+ extension rings for macro? I suspect this will be inferior on the macro part of the equation. But better on the other side.

Is the 100mm IS vastly superior at 100mm?

If you've ever shot with the 100/2.8 macro USM, you would/should know that it's difficult to top. The only thing, IMO, that prevented it from being labeled as an "L" was the construction. The images that comes from the 100/2.8 classic are phenomenal and incredibly sharp.

I would say the most significant improvement seen on the 100/2.8L is that it has IS, and "L"-quality build. The OOF/bokeh part is slightly smoother due to changes in the aperture blades and the AF is slightly faster than the 100/2.8 classic but IQ wise, they're very close.

If you need the IS and the weather-sealing, then yes, 100/2.8L is superior in that regard. Else, this would be a good time to pick up used 100/2.8 classics.

bbss wrote in post #8795451
How is the 100 is as a lightweight tele/portrait+ macro combo. Maybe with 1.4 TC on crop?

I have cleaned up in my mediocre lens setup, and want fewer but higher grade lenses. My longest now is sigma 50mm 1,4. I would like this lens mostly for macro.

Or is a 70-200 f4 is more usable+ extension rings for macro? I suspect this will be inferior on the macro part of the equation. But better on the other side.

Is the 100mm IS vastly superior at 100mm?

Not sure I'm following your last question there. I presume you're asking whether or not it's sharper than the 70-200 f/4. Looking at the MTF charts, I'd say they're in the same ballpark. But of course the macro lens will be better for macro work, since it's optimized for it.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #8796424
Not sure I'm following your last question there. I presume you're asking whether or not it's sharper than the 70-200 f/4. Looking at the MTF charts, I'd say they're in the same ballpark. But of course the macro lens will be better for macro work, since it's optimized for it.

The question was in relation to this;

bomzai wrote in post #8786614
The sharpness wide open is very good. Pairing this with IS and wide open being 2.8, I suspect this "macro" lens will spend some significant time on my 5D for general shooting. Both 24-70 at 70 and 24-105 don't even come close to this one sharpness-wise.

Not only sharpness, but quality of the rendering as a whole.

3thirteen wrote in post #8789489
I think it may be a waste of money. I have the "non IS" version and like someone said it's always on a tripod and pics are clear and crisp all the time.

You could well be right for most Macro work. Lets face it a one or two stops at 1:2 isn't going to help a lot at f16 during an over cast day. I'd far prefer to use a tripod, live view and a cable release.
But.... it's a might fine 100mm lens too. It's simulated MFT charts look stunning. The one that i tried the other day seems to hold up with that chart too, it's colours and contrast are all typical "L" quality.

For my wedding work, where ring shots and ring exchanges can sometimes be a challenge in low light...with out the option of a tripod. A 2 stop IS unit (at 1:2 ish) would be most welcome....added to the high iso ability of a 5DII or a 1DIII then this lens (although expensive) really does look like a worth while investment...for me.

Kind Regards,

Gareth Cooper

there are a lot of handheld shots posted here that look sharp as heck, so i beg to differ on the IS and say that it does in fact make a difference in macro shooting.

Ordered my copy of the new lens yesterday. Sadly, it seems I cant expect it until the beginning of november, due to delivery problems. Can't wait to get my hands on it

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #8802349
A 2 stop IS unit (at 1:2 ish) would be most welcome....added to the high iso ability of a 5DII or a 1DIII then this lens (although expensive) really does look like a worth while investment...for me.

exactly what I was thinking and why I ordered mine...

RiaGurl wrote in post #8804819
there are a lot of handheld shots posted here that look sharp as heck, so i beg to differ on the IS and say that it does in fact make a difference in macro shooting.

+1

But of course, if you aren't going to handhold a macro shot, ever, then...!

I just wished that Canon had made this an f2.0 lens and not an f2.8

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #8807125
I just wished that Canon had made this an f2.0 lens and not an f2.8

They didn't because they want to keep marketing 135L.