Who will "upgrade" their 100mm macro lens?

Since there is no option for Doesn't apply to me, I can't vote. I had a 100mm f/2.0 and loved it for sports but I sold it and bought the 135L f/2.0. For macro (or close up), I use a set of extension tubes on the 135.

There also isn't an "Undecided, I'll try it out first and then make a decision."

Had a 100mm Macro "Classic" version, ( Hey, why not, the barely 5 year old 5D has been proclaimed a "Classic" so why shouldn't the term Classic apply to the the original lens as well) but picked up the new IS "L" version a couple of days ago.

By way of explanation, I use the 100mm Macro primarily to shoot automotive details at Concours, where nervous owners of multi-million Dollar cars can get awfully excited when some stranger festooned with a big shoulder bag and a large DSLR on a monopod gets mere inches away from their freshly restored trasures. To decrease my and their stress level I therefore use the 100 mm Macro lens. As a bonus advantage, Macro lenses deliver a flatter image field for the occasional non-macro shot, therefore constitute a superior lens for my purposes. Had the 180mm Macro but found the perspective, very shallow depth of field, ands size & weight to be real handicaps. I also expect the new IS to be a real godsent in some of these situations when the monopod is simply not a viable option. Tripods are never acceptable at Concours

Attached a couple of sample shots taken with a 100mm Macro lens, the first of a Bentley radiator cap with the Classic, and the other of a tree leaf, casually and quickly taken this morning with the new IS L Version. While neither photo is strictly speaking a Macro shot, (nowhere near any meaningful magnification), they demonstrate their capabilties.

Initial impression is that overall I think it is worth the upgrade. Focusing is lightning fast, ( when coditions permit, I always pre-focus manually and let the AF do the final fine adjustment using the center point only), and colors look smoother, i.e. more realistic and less Kodachrome, over-the-top exaggerated than the Classic version delivere). The L, as I expected, just has a wonderfully mechanical feel that an all metal lens will always provide ( I know the outside is plastic but none of the critical, moving / contacting parts are ).

As an aside, why on earth would anyone keep / have both, the Classic and the new IS "L" version, as asked in the poll above.

JZG

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

MT Stringer how close can you get wit the extension tubes. I'm curious, because I might be picking up a used 135mm.

Sold my 100mm as winter is coming, i wont be using it much now and i needed to fund a trip to Russia, Was planning on the L anyway, so it all fell into place. Sell the old one, go to russia and when i come back, get the L,

Voted yes

I'm not much of a macro guy, but here are a couple of pics of a ring my daughter had for sale. I used an extension tube, 135l f/2 and 1D MK III. I think I used the 25mm tube (Kenko extension tube set). I had to change tubes so I'm not sure which one I ended up using. Bounce flash off the dining room ceiling was all that I used.

ISO 800 @ f/8

Hope this helps.
Mike

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I'm waiting for supply to increase and prices to drop a little. Maybe even a rebate before year end?

I voted that I would keep mine and get the L. But I'm not sure how I'm gonna go yet. It helps that I got the 100 Macro USM for $318 from Circuit City Liquidation, so I can theoretically sell mine for about $550 now and cough up the difference to jump to the L (in effect saving myself about $250). Or get the L someday and give the 100mm Macro USM to a family member or keep it as an inexpensive (by comparison) travel lens.

"As an aside, why on earth would anyone keep / have both, the Classic and the new IS "L" version, as asked in the poll above."

LOL...I'm THAT guy Actually, kind of a valid excuse. A year and a half ago, my wife decided she enjoyed photography as well. She has since shot almost 40,000 clicks and worn out my original backup 40d....she just got the 7d. When we take our son "Frog Hunting" (to see, play with and catch...not eat. Don't know why I felt the need to clarify, but I digress...), we both mount the 100mm macros. I have the original on a 5d2 (FF) and we picked up the new "L" series two weeks ago. We pop that on the 7d, essentially, the view of a 160mm macro....and away we go. Our 5 year old likes to play with the frogs and in the mud....wife and I shoot all sorts of fun, detailed nature shots. More of a silly hobby than anything....but as mentioned, it's not ONLY good for macro. A medium tele with IS is going to be a beautiful thing at weddings...on either camera, I'm assuming. We'll try it later.

So....the only answer, and after typing all that....that I have come up with is a bad answer. For when we BOTH decide to shoot macro at the same time LOL....not really. We do a ton of outdoor camping and backpacking. These are fun lenses in the woods and again, two different focal lengths (I know...not really....just the feel of extra reach) on the two different bodies.

I may or may not get rid of the "Classic"....we'll see....now that frog hunting, backpacking, and camping are over with in Alaska

What a Lens though! I really like the new one. If you can get 6-650 for one of these on the used market....I would say the extra 3-400 is worth it, for the new HIS system alone. YMMV

I've got both for right now - I might eventually sell the non-L macro, but only for the right price and to the right person. If I don't sell it, it will still get used on one body or another, by one family member or another. I don't have to sell it...

Thanks for all the feedback. I think I'm convinced to buy the new L. I was just in NY so I wish I had the chance to buy it then (CAD price is going to be too high especially with the exchange rate the way it is).

gjl711 wrote in post #8851243
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've never learned to read MTF charts, so I'd love your interpretation of the two lenses.
I went shooting at a park this morning and sure wish I had IS. I normally use macro for shooting my pen collection and jewelry, but for the odd time that I shoot macro outdoors, I think IS would be awesome to have.

Fangs404 wrote in post #8851296
I already sold my non-L and got the L. It was a fantastic upgrade and definitely worth the money.

Would you mind stating any differences in IQ? I've always wished my 100mm non-L had IS and focussed a bit faster, but if the new one has better IQ, that alone might be enough for me to get the new lens.

jacuff wrote in post #8851315
It would still be good to keep as a backup or to let a second shooter use.

Backup? Lenses don't really fail that much, do they? I just hate selling things because of the hassle so I tend to just accumulate stuff that never ends up getting used. I'm trying to find any reason to get the new one and not feel like I've got a few hundred dollars sitting there.

John Z. Goriup wrote in post #8852252
Initial impression is that overall I think it is worth the upgrade. Focusing is lightning fast, ( when coditions permit, I always pre-focus manually and let the AF do the final fine adjustment using the center point only), and colors look smoother, i.e. more realistic and less Kodachrome, over-the-top exaggerated than the Classic version delivere). The L, as I expected, just has a wonderfully mechanical feel that an all metal lens will always provide ( I know the outside is plastic but none of the critical, moving / contacting parts are ).

As an aside, why on earth would anyone keep / have both, the Classic and the new IS "L" version, as asked in the poll above.
JZG

Do you find it faster than the 100mm macro "classic?" Also, is the build quality noticeably better on the L version?

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #8855155
I've got both for right now - I might eventually sell the non-L macro, but only for the right price and to the right person. If I don't sell it, it will still get used on one body or another, by one family member or another. I don't have to sell it...

I get the feeling I'll end up with both too. I gave my second 5D to a family member, but I don't think that person would ever use a macro lens so it would probably be "wasted". Unless I own a crop sensor body one day, I can't imagine a time when I'd ever be using both at the same time.

I am perfectly happy with my ole' lens and will not be upgrading to the L IS version.

SunTsu wrote in post #8856715
I've never learned to read MTF charts, so I'd love your interpretation of the two lenses.
I went shooting at a park this morning and sure wish I had IS. I normally use macro for shooting my pen collection and jewelry, but for the odd time that I shoot macro outdoors, I think IS would be awesome to have. ...

Here is a nice tutorial on how to read the MTF charts.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …s/understanding​-mtf.shtml

And I do agree that the IS would be awesome to have not only for macro but for those times I use the 100mm as a low light tele.

I thought I was happy with the "classic" with no intention of upgrading to the "L" but after reading the thread I am not so sure.

Of course, my wife IS sure that I will not be upgrading.

I never had the original 100, but I'm selling my Sigma 150 after getting the 100L. Not that the Siggy 150 lacked anything in the IQ department...just that the 100L is as good a portrait lens as it is a macro, and the IS is incredible. Add to that perhaps the highest resolution of any lens I've ever used (and I've owned the entire holy trinity), and you've got a keeper.