technic Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
sphaero126 wrote:
Hello,
For those who have had experience with both these lens, Im curious what the difference is? I am only interested in macro reptile photography, and lately on my trips I have been using my 100mm USM with success. Im wondering if upgrading to the L would even be worth it? Id like to get to a point that most of my shots are in situ vs staged, which means taking the photos as I hike freehand vs a tripod, obviously. But if Im always using a flash for either fill or full light, would the difference be worth it? With what the camera stores are offering for the USM in my condition, Im expecting that the L will be an additional $400-450.
Thanks in advance!...Show more →
I currently own the 100L macro and have used several other macro lenses before that like sigma 105 and 150 (both the older versions without IS) and several others before that. IMHO the main advantage of the 100L it its capability for hand-held shooting in less than ideal light thanks to the IS, even though the IS is less effective than for infinity subjects. The 100L is definitely NOT better optically than most other (cheaper) macro lenses with similar focal length, maybe it is a bit better for infinity subjects though. AF performance is decent but as you know that is of little value for most macro photography.
I moved from the Sigma 2.8/150 to the 100L as main macro lens because I lost too many shots due to camera shake with high magnification or less than ideal light; I shoot mostly dragonflies and using a tripod is not an option for me. If you use tripod or always provide your own light I think upgrading to the 100L would be a waste of money. Of course, carrying and setting up tripod or lighting can be a hassle, but with slow moving reptiles it is probably less of a problem than with skittish dragonflies.
|