Just had a nice unexpected print sale from a wedding (love it when people value what we do enough to buy big prints even though they have the disk of images), and it is time for us to buy a 100mm macro lens. Been putting if off for a while before detail shooting is not my thing, but my wife is getting more into it.
So...debating between the standard 100mm macro or the L version. The L version would cost $350 more.
Opinions on which way we should go?
Thanks!
EDIT: We have some photos posted in a gallery at our St Louis wedding photographers website (in case anyone wants to see some direct examples)
I loved the L, but sold it to get a 70-200 2.8. I don't do tripod work, so the IS was handy. Someone who's really into macro and doesn't do it on the fly like I did would probably be quite happy with the non-L
I don't know if you guys are familiar with DigitalRev, but here is a video you may or may not be interested in. Obviously, take it with a grain of salt.
Image quality is more or less identical. The "L" gets you better build, slightly faster focusing, and overall a slightly better physical design.
That said, none of that really matters for what we use it for.
For us, about the only benefit is image stabilization. Is that feature alone worth the additional $350? For me, no. For someone else, maybe.
I personally find that with usable ISO6400 on the 5DII I can handhold ring shots in very low lighting. IS would give me another couple stops or so, but it wouldn't be worth the $350 to me.
Thanks for the input (and the link to the vid). From what it seems, they are not too far off. The IS would be nice for my wife's slightly shaky hands, but I would rather save the $
I've had both... as far as I'm concerned the IQ from both si pretty similar... I love the L though for the IS.. IMO, hand-holding that thing at f/11 or so can be so hard without the IS.
The 100 2.8L is rock solid and TACK sharp. I never worked without the L lens so I can testify on it's quality but the IS is CRUCIAL in the macro world. Your not going to put your camera on a tripod every time you want to use the macro lens.
1 ft min focus
fast to focus unlike the old version
weather seal
3 lens length settings
Suggest not missing out on recognition that this is excellent portrait L prime.
You can shoot handheld portraits hi iso in low light at ss 1/40 or 1/60
On crop it has reach of 160 mm and instead of using ss 1/160 - you can go down to 1/40 for people shots handheld
The 4 stop handholding is incredible
You can get sharp shots down to ss 1/15 or even 1/8
And what people miss is you can stop down to f5 – f6.3 and get two or three heads in focus in low light ss 1/50 iso 3200, iso6400 – the performance without flash is excellent when people are not moving much
And...the bokeh is very pleasing and excellent!
My favorite lens ever -- on FF -and works great in combo with 50mm and 200 mm on other bodies
I've used both, and the non-L is just as sharp (in my opinion). Color and clarity is similar with both, too. Save some cash! I'm pretty sure you'll be just as happy!
The Zeiss 100 f/2 ZE is a worthy investment. For weddings, the AF on the Canon is helpful. If you buy Canon, I wouldn't invest in anything but the L series for professional work. Not just IQ is better, but they are built to be work hoses.
We ended up going with the L version. This is moreso going to be a lens my wife uses (both for macro detail shots and for candids/portraits), and she think the IS will be a major help for her shaky hands.
I had the non-L and loved it. Super sharp images. Sold it and bought the L mostly for the IS. It too is awesome. So, for me, the L is the way to go. But if you just want a good close up lens that is super sharp, the original will be great.
Just got our L lens in the mail today...I have to say, this thing is crazy sharp. I have not really used a macro lens since my manual focus 35mm days, so it is a big gap since my last experience. But, yeah...this is a great lens.
Now I just have to keep reminding my wife to practice so she can do the detail shots for me
joelconner wrote:
Just got our L lens in the mail today...I have to say, this thing is crazy sharp. I have not really used a macro lens since my manual focus 35mm days, so it is a big gap since my last experience. But, yeah...this is a great lens.
Now I just have to keep reminding my wife to practice so she can do the detail shots for me
It's better on FF - see DPReview
Not only is it 100mm on FF but with my 5dc and weak AA filter I'm at zero on the LR slider between F5 and F6.3
Any extra slider sharpening at these settings makes it look too sharp
