Why I love my Canon 100mm L f2.8 IS Macro

I have had my share of lenses in my time of photography, my best math and memory puts me at 11 with currently owning 5. My Canon 100mm L f2.8 IS Macro has quickly become of my favorite lenses. The Image Stabilization is just unbelievable with this lens and it amazing how slow of a shutter speed I can hand hold without a tripod. I recently to this picture of a baby squirrel that my boys found while playing outside, and of course before I could tell them not to, they had handled it. So this story probably does not have the best ending, but it did allow me some great pictures.

This or the 135L will be my next lens...decisions decisions...

I am thinking of selling my Tamron 90 macro and getting this lens.
My Tammy is tack sharp, but the is and usm of the canon might be worth the extra dollars.

I love this lens more than my 85L II. Need I say more?

Jam.radonc wrote in post #10196515
I love this lens more than my 85L II. Need I say more?

Why do you like 100L better than 85L II? I have thought of getting both of these but the 85L II is quite expensive compared to the 100L.

My favorite lens and my favorite subject!
I also hope his mother found him before it was too late.

missed focus. i see the grass blades in focus but not eh rat's eye.

Awww, baby squirrels are kinda cute.

I owned the 100L briefly. It's a nice lens but I like my 135L more. Sold it to fund other things. If only money grew on trees...

SmuckerS2 wrote in post #10196616
missed focus. i see the grass blades in focus but not eh rat's eye.

From about 5' I have .96" DOF to work with so the grass and eye can still be in focus. Taking a photo of baby squirrel that is running around in a panic without its mother with less an 1" of DOF isn't the easiest

CTP wrote in post #10196697
From about 5' I have .96" DOF of field to work with so the grass and eye can still be in focus. Taking a photo of baby squirrel that is running around in a panic without its mother with less an 1" of DOF isn't the easiest

i like the composure and what you do have in focus. great image.

There are a lot of people that really love the 100L. I'm afraid I'm not among them. Don't take me wrong - it's an excellent lens optically speaking. It's just that it's no sharper and no faster than my 70-200/II and the bokeh is IMO somewhat inferior. The only advantage is the MFD and I'm not all that into macro photography. I really can't get excited about it. So its my least used lens. When I switch lenses I want a good reason and I seldom have one to switch to the 100L. The 135L on the other hand does produce a unique look that I can't get with the zoom, so it gets used much more than the 100L.

I'm currently thinking about getting the Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar as a substitute as it can provide something extra that my other glass can't. I would still probably keep the 100L for the situations where I really needed a 1:1 macro, weather sealing or AF. I think I'd use it about as much as I do now (i.e not a lot).

denoir wrote in post #10197187
There are a lot of people that really love the 100L. I'm afraid I'm not among them. Don't take me wrong - it's an excellent lens optically speaking. It's just that it's no sharper and no faster than my 70-200/II and the bokeh is IMO somewhat inferior. The only advantage is the MFD and I'm not all that into macro photography. I really can't get excited about it. So its my least used lens. When I switch lenses I want a good reason and I seldom have one to switch to the 100L. The 135L on the other hand does produce a unique look that I can't get with the zoom, so it gets used much more than the 100L.

I actually completely agree with you as long as we are talking about the mkII 70-200 2.8. I know the IS on that one is very similar to the 100L and if you dont use the macro, yeah its a no brainer. I have the mkI 70-200 2.8 and I can assure you, the IS on 100L is much better.

That's interesting - I thought that the IS on the MkI of the 70-200 was about the same as the IS on the 100L. I have no scientific proof but in my experience the IS of the 70-200 MkII is more effective than the one of the 100L. I could be mistaken there though..

I use the macro on occasion - it's a fun feature but. Still I use it seldom enough for the 100L to be one of my least used lenses..