100mm f2.8L macro

Im about to buy a 100 mm macro lens for use with portraiture (FF) as well as macro, just not sure whether to buy the old usm version or the new f2.8L is usm , anyone tested one against the other?

I had the same dilemma last month. I saw reviews that said the IQ on the L was a bit better, but nothing ground breaking. The reason I went with the L was the IS - not for the macro stuff - but because it turns this lens into a very capable tele-lens as well. It is a very versatile lens with IS and the IQ on the lens is incredible.

It is my most used lens right now, and I don't do a whole lot of macro work.

Hope this helps.

I bought the 100/2.8 macro non L and used it. My hand held shots for macro sucked, so I later opted to get the 100L. I couldn't have been happier. Too much motion when I used the non L. I've hardly used them for portraiture, so I can't really give you my opinions on it.

I just got the 100L last week and, so far, love it. I did this portrait of my son, who was in for a brief visit from college.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ronssmith/50846​73757/

I have owned both the 100mm macros, and ended up keeping my non-L. I didnt like the Hybrid IS system in the 100L. Sounded clunky and I didnt like how it flops around a bit inside the lens barrel when the lens is unmounted. I didnt like the build quality, IMO is was not up to L standards. As mentioned ealier, IS doesnt really help with macro photography if you use a flash, which I always do. I didnt like that I had to buy an additional $40 adapter to use the 100L with my MT-24EX flash. I didnt like that the 100L was not a standard filter size like 58mm or 77mm which ALL my other lenses match. There is also the annoying issue of the new tripod ring mount setup on the 100L. On the non-L you can buy a $40 adapter from Canon that allows you to use the common tripod ring mounts from the MP-E 65, 70-200 2.8's, 100-400L, and a couple others, but on the 100L you cant use those and it instead uses a very expensive and, much less common one. And lastly, since the IQ, bokeh, and colors for both lenses was so equal there was no justification for the upgrade there either. Needless to say I returned the 100L and kept my non-L.

bokeh is a hair better on the 100L, it also has IS if you're pulling double duty with it as a portrait lens.

The 100 non-L is 98.5% of the L. 1.5% does not justify 400 dollars for me.

Here is an example of the 100L bokeh... If interested.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Roroco wrote in post #11120594
Here is an example of the 100L bokeh... If interested.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Hey, my girlfriend didn't say she had been photographed! Funny, I didn't SEE anyone around with a camera! It's sure nice seeing her posted on the web! Can't wait for the residuals to begin rolling in!

BTW, I just received my 100 2.8 a day ago. Can't wait to put it to use...

richardfox wrote in post #11120720
Hey, my girlfriend didn't say she had been photographed! Funny, I didn't SEE anyone around with a camera! It's sure nice seeing her posted on the web! Can't wait for the residuals to begin rolling in!

BTW, I just received my 100 2.8 a day ago. Can't wait to put it to use...

I didn't know you were into blonds...

I have had two copies of the non-L and now the L.
Both are superb. Their optics are great. If you want it for macro, the non-L is fine. If you also want a medium telephoto (like for portraits) the IS is the great advantage of the L.

Same problem I'm having now

It seems the general thoughts are , the L version is not worth double the cost.
To be honest... I'd have bought the L by now if it was in stock in my preferred suppliers and the fact that its not, has given enough time to install doubt.

I have never had problems holding the my 100mm 2.8 (non-IS). I've seen used ones for $400 which is amazing. Its a very sharp lens, and does portraits well, but for portraits I like the option of something faster than 2.8. The 135mm 2.0 or the 100mm 2.0 are better portrait options. The 100mm 2.8 non IS macro however is one really great lens.

Roroco wrote in post #11119213
I had the same dilemma last month. I saw reviews that said the IQ on the L was a bit better, but nothing ground breaking. The reason I went with the L was the IS - not for the macro stuff - but because it turns this lens into a very capable tele-lens as well. It is a very versatile lens with IS and the IQ on the lens is incredible.

It is my most used lens right now, and I don't do a whole lot of macro work.

Hope this helps.

+1

I've had this lens and loved the IS on it for portraits. I would never buy the non-L if I was planning on using it for portraits.

I eventually sold the 100L because I used it for portraits 95% of the time and bought the 70-200mmMKII.

I love the 100L simply for three reasons. Great 1:1 macro, hybrid image stabilisation and it's light weight. Honestly if macro is the only usage then by all means get the non L as IQ wise it's almost identical if not so.

Oh it makes a great walkabout lens too.

Some dead leaves

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 486148 does not exist. ]


My little one

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 486149 does not exist. ]