Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Macro World Resource
  

FM Forums | Macro & Still Life | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2017 · Canon 100mm USM vs 100mm L

  
 
sphaero126
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 100mm USM vs 100mm L


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!



Dec 04, 2017 at 08:59 PM
LordV
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 100mm USM vs 100mm L


Think I would wait and see how many of your fill flash shots suffer from motion blur if any when you are hand holding.
Difficult to see any advantage for full flash shots.

Brian V.



Dec 05, 2017 at 01:20 AM
technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 100mm USM vs 100mm L


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
...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.



Dec 08, 2017 at 03:24 PM
Lightsearcher
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 100mm USM vs 100mm L


technic wrote:
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
...Show more

Great feedback about the lenses, I am also in the same situation of the OP but my intentions to use the lens is for video. I am thinking that having the 100L will help me to have a smooth video because the IS built in the lens, do you have any experience using this lens for video on a tripod with the IS on ?



Dec 25, 2017 at 12:51 PM
Dalantech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 100mm USM vs 100mm L


It really depends on what your primary light source is gonna be. If using a flash then IS is pointless since the short duration of the flash is going to act as your "shutter speed". If using natural light then IS can help, but the closer you get to 1x the less likely you'll be be able to hand hold the lens and get a sharp image even with IS.

I'm also going to go against the norm and tell you that macro lenses in the 100mm range are a bad choice for macro. If you're going to use a flash as the primary light source then you'll want to get it as close to the subject as possible to improve the diffusion of the light, and to keep the duration of the flash as short as possible. So macro lenses in the 60mm range actually work best for flash photography.

If you're going to use natural light then the working distance of a 100mm lens might be a little short.

Last, but not least, there's no such thing as a "bug lens" -it's the subject, and your knowledge of them, that will determine if you get close enough to take a shot and not the working distance of the lens.

Lizard Portrait by John Kimbler, on Flickr



Dec 31, 2017 at 05:57 AM





FM Forums | Macro & Still Life | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.