p.2 #1 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
A couple of years ago a friend of mine and I swapped 100mms for a month. My 100 F2 for his 100 macro. I got a good chance to live with the non-IS for a while and really liked it. So much so I started keeping my eyes open for a good deal on a used one. About 6 months after the L came out I found someone on the B&S here that had an L that wasn't being used and I got it at a $200 discount off the going rate for a new one. After shooting with it and looking back at the shots I took with non-L I found that the L was slightly sharper and had a little better color and contrast but it was nothing that couldn't be taken care of in post. The IS is handy for hand held macro where the slightest movement can have big results and the fact that you need to up the aperture to get a good DOF. Is the L better? Absolutely in every category. Is it worth almost 2x the cost? Maybe. If you already have the non-L is it worth the upgrade? In my opinion, No. For someone who doesn't have a 100mm then the L is worth a good hard look if you can justify the extra cost. It is a better lens but I am not completely sure the extra cost can be justified unless you get lucky like I did and find a good deal on a used one.
Here is a shot from my friend's non-L with my 1DsII:
p.2 #3 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Undoubtedly the new L version of this macro lens is very good. Is it worth the upgrade from the 100/2.8 EF lens? It depends. Some seem to like the IS for macro/closeup shooting a lot. Personally, I do not need IS for my macro shooting. If I can't handle the needed exposure time given by available regular light, I use flash(es) anyway with a faster exposure time. My best macro lens, the MP-E 65/2.8 - given it is made for higher magnifications than 1:1 - is a full manual lens anyway, if you know how to handle this one, you don't need IS for macro shooting.
I tested the 100/2.8 L version for a couple of days, and optically I did not see a difference to my 100/2.8 EF lens. I decided not to upgrade and to keep my EF version.
A lens which I really like, especially for closeup shots, is the Sigma 150/2.8 macro lens. If I would buy new now from scratch, I would get this one instead.
p.2 #4 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I've always wanted to try macro. I've never done it (sports guy...). So a couple weeks back, I got a godfather deal on a 100 non IS ($200). It is basically a new lens, I got it with a bunch of other gear too (a rebutable deal not stolen). I've got a 135L so all I'm going to use it for is macro once football season is over... I've only shot a couple test shots with it, but it's sharp, and the color is good. It seems any short comings could be fixed in post or attributed to pilot error.
p.2 #5 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I have the Sigma 105mm Macro and just bought the Canon 100 mm L .
From what I can tell so far I really like the Canon over the Sigma.
I shoot macro for work on a tripod and as most others have pointed out most macro is generally done on a tripod and you manually focus. The auto focus and the IS is nice if you carry it and need those options on the fly. Otherwise you might want to save the money if spending the extra is going to be a stretch for you.
Last week Canon had a sale on the 100L for $929 which is a decent price. If I decide to sell my Sigma then I will only have spent about another $400 give or take.
Sigma also makes a newer 105mm that has improved IS and Auto focus.
I found that these lens pretty well retain their values quite well if you take care of them.
Then lens I really want to buy is the Zeiss Makro Planar T 100mm. the sharpness is outstanding as is the price. But the Zeiss is non IS and manual focus only. When I have extra cash I will probably buy it and just hand onto my Canon 100L and have the best of two worlds.
p.2 #6 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Snapshot101 wrote:
I have the Sigma 105mm Macro and just bought the Canon 100 mm L .
From what I can tell so far I really like the Canon over the Sigma.
I shoot macro for work on a tripod and as most others have pointed out most macro is generally done on a tripod and you manually focus. The auto focus and the IS is nice if you carry it and need those options on the fly. Otherwise you might want to save the money if spending the extra is going to be a stretch for you.
Last week Canon had a sale on the 100L for $929 which is a decent price. If I decide to sell my Sigma then I will only have spent about another $400 give or take.
Sigma also makes a newer 105mm that has improved IS and Auto focus.
I found that these lens pretty well retain their values quite well if you take care of them.
Then lens I really want to buy is the Zeiss Makro Planar T 100mm. the sharpness is outstanding as is the price. But the Zeiss is non IS and manual focus only. When I have extra cash I will probably buy it and just hand onto my Canon 100L and have the best of two worlds.
I also own the Sigma 105/2.8 macro lens (old version). I agree that its AF with the AF/MF ring barrel and the additional AF/MF switch is antique and inconvenient, also the AF is very slow. I still keep it since it has two advantages over my Canon 100/2.8 EF lens: it provides a much smaller aperture, and its color cast is a bit more appealing to me in some situations. I also like that the Sigma front lens is located further inside the lens housing which automatically avoids reflection issues. The Sigma lens is lighter and smaller also compared to its EF Canon counterpart. Meanwhile I am using the Canon lens more often, but I got so many awesome photos with the Sigma lens that I am keeping it, too.
p.2 #7 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Snapshot101 wrote:
Then lens I really want to buy is the Zeiss Makro Planar T 100mm. the sharpness is outstanding as is the price. But the Zeiss is non IS and manual focus only. When I have extra cash I will probably buy it and just hand onto my Canon 100L and have the best of two worlds.
If you plan to keep both then yes, it's a good idea but on its own, the 100MP is only 1:2. Personally, I wouldn't keep two 100mm lenses. I'd rather have the 100MP and 150/2.8 OS. While heavier, it's a more versatile set IMHO.
p.2 #8 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Yakim Peled wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't keep two 100mm lenses. I'd rather have the 100MP and 150/2.8 OS. While heavier, it's a more versatile set IMHO.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I agree. I only have two 100 mm macro lenses because I got an excellent deal for a brand new Canon 100/2.8 EF macro lens at CircuitCity just before it went fully bancrupt several years ago. A suitable addition to an already existing 100 mm macro lens is either the MP-E 65 or as said above any of the 150/2.8 macro lenses.
p.2 #12 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
coppertop wrote:
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....Show more →
+1 and add a Canon 1.4xtc to the mix while your at it Yes... it can be used if there is some confusion... you place the extension tube on the camera.. then the TC... love the combo.
p.2 #13 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I had a great copy of the non-L version and then got the L version. The IS is incredible. I have captured a lot of shots that with the IS version that with non-IS version would not have been possible. This includes portraits and macro. I actually find myself keeping this lense on a lot of the time. I have used it on the 5D mark III and my 50D. Anyway, it's worth the upgrade.
p.2 #15 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
Just upgraded...sold my 100 non-L, add $400 and got the 100L. Here is my findings:
- IQ is similar. I am not able to sort between the two. I read bokeh, contrast are slightly better and sharpness is the same. It is not twice better as the price difference could suggest.
- IS is nice. I mainly shoot with a tripod but sometimes (like with moving bugs) handheld is important to me.
- build quality: better: zoom ring is smoother, AF is quicker and weather sealed...but again not twice better
Overall: If IS is important to you go, otherwise keep the one you have it is a jewel too!
p.2 #16 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I do NOT shoot macro. And I didi not own a "100". But after I shot portraits with a friends one, I decided it would be a great lens for many of my shots. I went into my dealers shop and tested both. And purchased the "L".
I as good as never use a tripod. And the "L" felt slightly faster, sharper and adds an excellent IS. The offer was 300 € plus, so decision was easy.
I use it about 70% actually. The 100 is a great lens. The "L" beats it for me.
p.2 #17 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I've had the USM 100 macro since my Elan days and upgraded to the L version primarily for the IS. The IQ is excellent with either lens but the IS is worth it for my style of shooting. The L macro is one of my three main travel lenses along with a 24-105 and 100-400. I use it for portraits and shallow DOF as well as macro and close focus applications. The lens is sharp at f2.8. I like the 100 mm FOV for portraiture both human and inanimate, but the lens also works well on my 7D. Since I'm rather opportunistic in photographing what I see, I usually hand hold and the IS has helped significantly. I upgraded my 70-200 f4 to the IS version for the same reasons.
p.2 #18 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
The "L" was my first buy of a macro lens. I don't shoot much in the macro world but use it mostly as a general purpose short tele. It's probably my second most used lens.
p.2 #19 · 100mm 2.8 macro...Is the L upgrade worth it?
I find that the 100 L IS is a good handheld travel lens also. When you have to make grab handheld landscape shots. I use it in portrait mode and shoot 3-5 image panos. Photoshop 6 does a great pano merge. It also makes a decent lens for grab shots of buildings and people and allows carrying only one lens. Started me thinking, this might be good for the new EOS-M as a travel camera especially when traveling or hiking in non-photography groups where you can't keep stopping to photograph.
Paul
Yes... it can be used if there is some confusion... you place the extension tube on the camera.. then the TC... love the combo.