Difference between Canon 100 mm 2.8 Macro non USM and Canon 100 2.8 USM Macro

Hi Folks,

I am not much of a macro person, was just planning to buy a macro lens for some macro photography in the coming weeks, I just came to know that there have been two versions of the 100 mm Macro lens, one is 100 mm non USM older version and the newer 100 mm 2.8 Macro USM version. Can anyone please guide me the difference between the two and what is better than the other.

3 versions actually:

- EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (original)
- EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
- EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

The original extends when you focus closer and apparently has slightly worse IQ than the USM or the L so I recommend you get either the USM (if you are on a budget) or the L if you don't want to bring tripods around for your Macro shots. There is not much difference between the USM and the L in terms of IQ (maybe the L has somewhat better bokeh though).

Thanks for explaining..

Just a question why the original one has a worse IQ?

maxloxton wrote in post #9138610
Thanks for explaining..

Just a question why the original one has a worse IQ?

They are both fantastic optically.

maxloxton wrote in post #9138610
Just a question why the original one has a worse IQ?

From my experience of having both at the same time, I couldn't split them for IQ and they both have 8 bladed apertures.
The extension on the older version negates the need for a hood but the barrel extension can be considered a slight negative. AF in non-macro usage can be a little noisy with the micro-motor.

Bob

IQ wise, I've seldom heard there's an IQ difference between the original and USM version of the 100 Macro. I've got the original and it's worked well for 15+ years. The lens getting longer as magnification increases has never been an issue with me; many macro lenses behave similarly.

All that said, unless you get a great deal on the non-USM version, I'd go with one of the newer lenses. I imagine if I have an issue with mine, parts won't be available. It's like my 80-200/2.8L; its a great lens that won't be replaced until something goes wrong with it. But if/when I'm in the market for a replacement, I'd never consider an autofocus lens designed 15+ years ago.

Thanks, I stand corrected. Couldn't remember the original source of that misinformation. In general, macro lenses from all manufacturers are very sharp (perhaps second only to the expensive supertelephotos).

Frank, you're right about that. I've tried many macro lenses and they have all been very, very good. The one difference I've noticed is in the bokeh; most seem to do quite nicely up close, some are better than others when used more conventionally. The other big factor for me with macro lenses is the manual focus ease of use. That's my biggest complaint about my old EF 100 macro; when using it in manual the focus ring doesn't have any feel.

i've got the older non usm version...and yeah the barrel extends when focusing which at first was interesting to deal with...especially in some macro situations when i would use AF...but i got over it after a couple days of using it...now i mostly use MF though

if you can get a really good deal on the non USM i'd go for it...parts aren't available as mentioned above(mine is missing both switches)...there seem to be a lot of really good deals on the USM version though with the recent L being released

frankchn wrote in post #9138488
3 versions actually:

- EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (original)
- EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
- EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

The original extends when you focus closer and apparently has slightly worse IQ than the USM or the L so I recommend you get either the USM (if you are on a budget) or the L if you don't want to bring tripods around for your Macro shots. There is not much difference between the USM and the L in terms of IQ (maybe the L has somewhat better bokeh though).

I'm relatively new at this. Will someone tell me what a bokeh is?
Thanks

James Emory wrote in post #9140511
I'm relatively new at this. Will someone tell me what a bokeh is?
Thanks

Bokeh is blur, generally background blur. It is always used with a descriptive, good, bad, swirly, etc. People consider bokeh often to be good if the transition from the in-focus area to the out-of-focus (OOF) area is smooth and gradual, without weird behaviour like doubling of lines etc. It is a matter of taste, however.

It is often easiest to see how good the bokeh is based on specular reflections in the OOF area. These tend to have the shape of the diaphragm, and are nicely rounded if the diaphragm is nicely rounded, too. Furthermore, the disks these reflections create, should have a smooth transition from lightest in the centre to darkest at the edges, preferably without showing any ring-like features, f.e.. The more they look like this, the more the general background blur is likely to behave like that as well.

The old 100 Macro is supposed to have reasonably good bokeh, the newer USM version slightly less good, and the new 100L Macro very good.

However, in macro territory this is a bit of a moot point, most of the time. The depth of field (DoF) in macro shots is often so small, that anything outside the DoF is rendered totally and utterly blurred beyond recognition anyway. It gets more important when using the lens for, e.g., portraiture. A nice bokeh helps a lot to make a portrait stand out better.

Do also note that bokeh is dependent not only on how the lens draws the background or on the shape of the diaphragm, but also on the shape and distance of background objects. Stick-like objects in the background, or blade-like objects (like grass), or anything angular, may make for not-so-good bokeh, purely because of shape and not enough blur or doubling of lines.

Lenses considered to have very good bokeh are most of the L-primes, with 50L, 85L and 135L probably amongst the best of them all. Their very large maximum apertures do help here too: there is less DoF at large apertures to begin with.

Kind regards, Wim