p.1 #1 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Hi everyone,
I have been using the 100mm 2.8 macro non L since a year or so and i have to say i absolutly adore it. Even do it is a 100mm i find this lens extra versatille and if you have good legs you can do pretty much anything and get absolutly amazing image quality. The only things I can say that are bad is the lack of IS and the flare control wich is not very good..
Whats important for me is...
-image quality
-AF speed and acuracy
-color rendition
-control of flare
My question goes to those of you who did the upgrade, Did you see a big difference in overall perfomance
p.1 #2 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Hi Alexis,
I don't have the L yet but have shot with it...in store. Two things noticed about the build (on a gripped 40D) it balanced better (I have had two copies of the non-L, still have one from 07) and the focus ring was smoother. IQ only looks slightly better as does Bokeh...it's on my buy list but only for the IS.
I shoot with the old 100 all the time and love it...mostly shoot handheld...I'm absolutely hooked on IS, my 70-200 f4L IS has seriously spoiled me
You might do a search on the 100L in the macro forum, there are lots of images and information to be had!
p.1 #3 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I never saw enough to make the jump. Most macro is done with manual focus and image quality is simply fantastic with the non-L version.
IS is really an subjective feature. If you need it, then it's a great feature. If you don't, it's an added expense. Personally, I always shot macro handheld outdoors but used the ground, my body, a tree, or whatever to help stabilize things. Indoor shots were from a tripod so I just never had the need for IS with macro.
I'd consider investing in a nice set of extension tubes or a ring flash to expand the 100mm's capabilities.
p.1 #4 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
You did not mention image stabilization in your final list of things that are important, but you did mention that in the paragraph. For me that is the biggest reason to upgrade, so if you are going to do any hand held shooting, macro or otherwise, IS can be very helpful. Stabilizing for translation movement and not just angular movement is important for when you get close in for macro. And the IS helps not just for hand held, but also for some macro tripod setups that are only semi stable because of the setup or that the camera is hanging out away from the tripod and toward a subject.
Remember of course that if you are using flash for macro, and it is your primary light, the short flash duration makes IS not too needed. But there are plenty of available light macro situations.
For your other things in the list, you will not loose anything, but may get some minor gains. For control of flare, I did not notice issues with my old 100 macro, but I usually shoot macro with more diffuse light. So I am not really qualified to say on flare improvement, but it could be using some of the newer better coatings.
p.1 #5 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Thanks for the replys I forgot to mention that I dont really use the lens for its macro purpose. I will most likely use it for studio work (pretty much the only lens i use in studio), outdor portait (I prefer it than 85mm 1.8 that I also have), even architecture and lanscape it may sound weird but the 100mm macro excel's in all of these situation.
For me IS is not that important because i either shoot with flash or mooving subject wich needs higher shutter speeds anyways.
So IS is not a big deal for me.But IQ is a big deal!
The extension tubes are pretty cool and sometimes in studio they could be usefull but 1:1 is already enought for 90% of my work.
p.1 #9 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I sold my non IS and immediately bought the IS version. I feel the IS has slightly better contrast and color, but never tested them side by side.
I will most likely use it for studio work (pretty much the only lens i use in studio), outdoor portrait (I prefer it than 85mm 1.8 that I also have), even architecture and landscape it may sound weird but the 100mm macro excels in all of these situation.
I think this is an excellent reason to buy the IS version. If you ever have blurring from lens movement, the 4 stop IS will correct for this. And even if you constantly shoot macro from a tripod, you will find a situation that you might shoot with IS, that you'd think is too much trouble or too difficult terrain to set up the tripod. I consider my IS lens as an image stabilized short tele that also does macro.
If you only shoot macro, always from a tripod, then this lens is probably not worth it to you.
p.1 #10 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I've had 3 or 4 of the USM models. I never really liked them, I took a lot of oof shots which I believe were due to the slow AF.
When the "L" came out, I resisted getting it until there were many who has positive things to say.
What a improvement for ordinary walk-around close focus shooting. It was well worth the price.
However, for those who go about their Macro Photography is a prudent and careful way the USM is supurb. Its those like me who are not careful and like to snap a closeup on the spur of the moment that the "L" was made for.
p.1 #11 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I replaced my 100mm non-L with the L version...As scalesusa says the IS is handy for those that like to snap a closeup on the spur of the moment.
However the real issue for me with macro is getting accurate focus handheld, as tiny movements towards or away from your subject will throw your focus off just as much as shaking hands. IS can't help with this; for careful macro work a tripod is the best option.
So the L isn't a silver bullet, but I do like the upgrade.
I also love the versatility of the 100L as an IS portrait lens. My 135mm f/2 has been getting a lot less use ever since.
p.1 #13 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
If you shoot macro primarily without a tripod, there's no question the IS is worth every penny IMHO. If you use a tripod, however, I recommend the 180mm L. The results I got with that lens were truly remarkable, even unique amongst Canon lenses -- but you really must mount on a tripod to get the most from it.
p.1 #14 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I have both the L and non-L (until I get around to selling the non-L). Others have talked about the macro perspective, so I'll add another one. The L is also great for casual handheld portraits in moderate light (due to the 3-4 stops the IS gives you).
p.1 #15 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
The 100L is simply an awesome short telephoto lens, regardless of macro features. One of my favorites, and I'd never consider the 100 USM Macro, unless I absolutely couldn't afford the 100L. Canon website refurbs show it for under $700. It's a amazing portrait lens.
Here's a test shot @ f/2.8, LR4 default settings with slight cropping, minor exposure adjustment, and -5 Highlights, no other correction (no sharpening but the default 25), filtered with Schneider Warm Black Frost 1/8.
p.1 #16 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Yes, the 100L is a step up from the non-L, partly due to IS, partly to bokeh, not so much for sharpness (about equally superb), but AF is also a mega-advantage for the L. Together with the 35L, it is my most used lens (and I own quite a few nice lenses). Very versatile!
p.1 #17 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I use the 100mm IS L for work and the old 100 USM privatly.
For me, the L is not worth the extra money. Concerning IQ, sharpness and bokeh, I think both lenses are very much the same. The IS of the L-version is nice for handheld shots, but since I use them almost exclusively for macro work, I use a beanbag or tripod anyway.
But if you plan studio shots and don't mind the additional money the L costs, go for it. Otherwise, I think the non-L version will do just fine.
p.1 #18 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I echo what has already been said. This is an excellent lens that I use 50% of the time for macro work, and the other 50% of the time for general purpose shooting. It is a killer tool!
