Who will "upgrade" their 100mm macro lens?

I'm flirting with the idea of getting the 100mm macro L lens, but I'm not sure I'll be getting a lot more than what I already have in the 100mm f/2.8 macro (non-L).

Just wondering if anyone else is in the same boat and what you're thinking. I haven't been able to find any comparisons of the two lenses so if anyone has real-life experience, I'd love to hear it.

Love my newly acquired 100 f/2.8 macro. Sharp as all get out. I won't be upgrading.

I went with choice #1 because the non-L version is enough for my limited macro use.

I'd like to clarify;
No, I'm happy with my current 100mm macro, because I can't really justify spending that much extra on a lens just to add IS. However, I might go for it if it becomes cheaper
Also, I just added another (shorter) macro lens that I always wanted, so not saving for the L-upgrade just yet.

When I use my current 100mm 2.8 for macro purposes, I use a monopod and it works just fine. I have no need for the new version.

Just bought the non-L 100 macro and no regrets. Going to sell my 60 though.

Eh, I just noticed the gap between the orginal 100mm macro and the new IS-L version is 299 euros now (509 euros vs 808 euros). That does make it slightly more tempting, but only because I paid 400 euros for my macro when it was new, prices just went up to the point where the used-market price is now equal to what I paid for it new...

I love IS and find it very useful for the type of photography I do, so mine will be here on Wens! It's a great prime and I love to do natural light portraits w/o a tripod, what's not to like (besides price)?

I thought about it but changed my mind, I am able to take good pictures with the non IS and I don't think the extra money is worth the upgrade.

I had the new one pre-ordered, but canceled it. The non-L that I have is really sharp and for my needs I can't justify it.

When Nikon came out with their 105mm micro-nikkor with VR, I contemplated getting one of their bodies and this lens. I'll definitely be upgrading, but not for a while.

When I saw that the new 100mm macro came out, i listed mine up instantly. Through the course of having the lens for a little over a year i used it sparingly as my 24-70 is my most used walkabout lens. I figured I would sell now, and if I ever changed my mind, that I would just upgrade

Fodowsky wrote in post #8850243
I had the new one pre-ordered, but canceled it. The non-L that I have is really sharp and for my needs I can't justify it.

Ditto. I am so happy with the performance of my 100mm right now and looking at the MFT charts and few samples it doesn't look like there is going to be much of a IQ bump, if any. The IS would be nice but for most of the up close macro work I do with this lens, I'm tripod and focus rail mounted anyway.

I already sold my non-L and got the L. It was a fantastic upgrade and definitely worth the money.

I'm not upgrading this year, but I might in the next year or two. I plan to get a loaner from CPS or rent one for a week and compare the new macro to my old macro. If I can tell a significant difference, I'll buy the L. The gold ring version is still a really good lens. It would still be good to keep as a backup or to let a second shooter use.