TBH I wasn't sure if Canon would end up discontinuing this lens or not but according to CR it looks like they have. It hasn't been officially announced but it sounds probable.
M Vers wrote:
TBH I wasn't sure if Canon would end up discontinuing this lens or not but according to CR it looks like they have. It hasn't been officially announced but it sounds probable.
It still show on Canon web site but B&H show it out of stock. Adorama show them in stock. It is being replaced with a New 100 2.8 IS lens that came out a few months ago.
Fedxpress
I love my 100 macro, I was greatly depressed to find out there was fungus in the front element the other day. I took it to canon to have it cleaned and they had to replace all of the front elements! Considering that, the fact that it cost $112 to do that doesn't seem so bad.
I doubt they'll discontinue this lens. There's enough feature differences between them that they don't overlap. Besides, if Canon discontinue this lens, people who can't afford or doesn't want to get the 100L will just go and buy some 3rd party macro lens like the Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm, in which case Canon will stand to lose more than if they keep the non L 100mm.
Remember, unlike other types of lenses, most if not all macro lenses are known to be very sharp so it's not a really a factor in choosing one. If one doesn't want/need the IS/weather sealing/the thin red line/faster AF/etc. one can simply choose a 3rd party lens with similar focal length.
saaketham wrote:
I'd been planning to sell my 100 macro to partly offset my 7D purchase .. but now I'm wondering whether it'd be better to keep it or not.
It's not a rare lens so I doubt you would have trouble locating it in the future if it were to become discontinued. Aside from that there are plenty other choices out there.
I doubt they would do it. The 50/1.4 and 80/1.8 weren't discontinued. In fact, has any "normal" lens been discontinued when a new "L" came in the mix? I don't think the existing 100mm hurts the sales of the IS version at all. If someone doesn't want to spend $1000 for a macro, they aren't going to spend the $$ just because the cheaper Canon alternative is no longer available new. They are going to buy a Sigma, Tamron, used Canon, etc. instead...not move up to the "L" version.
jdben622 wrote:
I doubt they would do it. The 50/1.4 and 80/1.8 weren't discontinued. In fact, has any "normal" lens been discontinued when a new "L" came in the mix? I don't think the existing 100mm hurts the sales of the IS version at all. If someone doesn't want to spend $1000 for a macro, they aren't going to spend the $$ just because the cheaper Canon alternative is no longer available new. They are going to buy a Sigma, Tamron, used Canon, etc. instead...not move up to the "L" version.
OTOH The 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 are vastly different from their L counterparts, so I wouldn't be so quick to compare the 100/2.8 macros to them. A better example is the 70-200's.
For those who don't have one and want one, I hope this is just a poorly started rumor(Otherwise, try to pick one up now, before the end has passes) I was lucky and picked one of these up in a "bundle" deal, and after all said and done I think the net cost is near $200-$250.00. It's a great lens, and I have no intentions yet to step up the it's "Red Carpet" younger cousin.
I don't know that the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are VASTLY different than the L counterparts. You're certainly not going to get the euphoric wide open magic the L's offer, but outside of that (albeit huge) single difference, I'd say at 2.8 they are very similar in many respects.
I just don't think that Canon would leave a gaping hole in their FF-body macro line up. 50/2.5 and 100/2.8L IS?? Most people looking at the middle price point will just go to a third party alternative, not move up to the L.
Also consider, I think the new L version of the lens is designed to appeal to a broader use of applications, not pure macro. If ALL you wanted to do is shoot macro, you probably MF, so 95% of the new lens's benefit is gone. You also have a new 67mm thread size to re-work all of you accessories to, there is no current tripod ring to attach to your rail, etc. For the pure macro shooter, the regular 100mm/2.8 makes much more sense, so eliminating it doesn't IMHO.
For myself, being able to hand-hold macro for the little I do is a Godsend. I use the new L version for lots of other things besides macro and that was the appeal to me. The AF is fast enough to get by. It's a great general purpose lens...well worth the price of admission.
jdben622 wrote:
I don't know that the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are VASTLY different than the L counterparts. You're certainly not going to get the euphoric wide open magic the L's offer, but outside of that (albeit huge) single difference, I'd say at 2.8 they are very similar in many respects.
Well, yes, when you compare them at the same apertures of course they wont be vastly different--I was referring to f/1.2 vs 1.4/1.8 which for many people is vastly different.
I just don't think that Canon would leave a gaping hole in their FF-body macro line up. 50/2.5 and 100/2.8L IS?? Most people looking at the middle price point will just go to a third party alternative, not move up to the L.
They have done much stranger things before...
Also consider, I think the new L version of the lens is designed to appeal to a broader use of applications, not pure macro. If ALL you wanted to do is shoot macro, you probably MF, so 95% of the new lens's benefit is gone. You also have a new 67mm thread size to re-work all of you accessories to, there is no current tripod ring to attach to your rail, etc. For the pure macro shooter, the regular 100mm/2.8 makes much more sense, so eliminating it doesn't IMHO.
For myself, being able to hand-hold macro for the little I do is a Godsend. I use the new L version for lots of other things besides macro and that was the appeal to me. The AF is fast enough to get by. It's a great general purpose lens...well worth the price of admission....Show more →
AF speed is not the only major/deciding difference between the 100mm macros and it doesn't make up 95% of its advantages. The IS system L's main appeal. I also don't agree that the lens does not appeal to pure macro shooters, at all in fact. It just happens to appeal to many more who don't shoot pure macro. Most of my outside work is macro and an IS system in a true macro lens is something that I'd like to have.
Grant808 wrote:
... Or it would just be a higher price
Oh I doubt that. It's not a particularly rare lens and like I said, there are plenty of 3rd party lenses to choose from. Besides, how much higher can you price this lens anyway? Specially when the L version only costs a few hundreds more.
