I have been hesitant about the purchase of 100L lens. The primary reason is that I already own an excellent copy (aren't they all ?) of 100 f/2.8 USM macro, and added benefits of IS as well as a few other embellishments have not stood a "bang for $" scrutiny in my books so far.
My primary use for the old macro lens has been flowers, some BIF when I can get close enough to them, portrait/candids and city scenes.
What has made me use the lens relatively often is its good IQ, low weight and small size. In fact, other than the BIF application, for me 100mm is a bit more friendly FL than 135mm. However, I have experienced some difficulty holding both 100 f/2.8 and 135L steady enough under the 1/FL rule because of their low inertial mass....those lenses do not attenuate high frequency camera shake very well. No doubt, I would benefit from IS there.
There are two questions remaining:
(1) By how much has the AF drive speed been increased, if at all ? A minor improvement is hardly significant because it is the camera AF system which is often a limiting component in a fast action situation, not the lens.
(2) Is IS and a possible minor AF speed increase worth $1,100 + 13% sales tax to me ? (Incidentally, for very fast BIF photography IS has to be turned off....thus no benefit coming from the new lens there.) Unfortunately, some sentimental reasons do not allow for the old lens to be sold even if I were to get the new one.
Finally, I'd like to receive some brief input from the 100L owners. Hopefully, those folks can talk about the 100L performance relative to the old 100 f/2.8 USM or even 135L.
Yes Peter; We NEED to know how good a lens it is for BIF
From what I have seen; it has not impressed me that much, however, I am curious about the new L plastic build and must admit; it looks like a handsome addtition to any kit.
I chose yes also...Simply from a collection/interest standpoint. I just recently picked up the Non-L 100mm F/2.8 Macro USM, and can't wait until my experience exceeds the limitations of my equipment.
Aberdeen Photo wrote:
You gotta test it for the rest of us...
I am a bit tempted, but have not made the leap.
I am hoping for good things from this lens.
Yeah, but the times we live in have made me as tight as the skin on a sausage when it comes to spending my wife's money on more gear(s). .
reno.peterson wrote:
I chose yes also...Simply from a collection/interest standpoint. I just recently picked up the Non-L 100mm F/2.8 Macro USM, and can't wait until my experience exceeds the limitations of my equipment.
Good call, Reno, Let me tell ya, that is not likely to happen any time soon.
I agree Peter; these times are tight and I miss my 180 3.5 that I sold earlier this yr.
This yr has been horrible for my business, but it must go on. 10 is gonna be better than 09 for many reasons.
The reviews have been a mixed bag. Some love it and others think the older 100 is as good and the 180 is better. For me I have been using Kenko tubes on a 50 or even a 135 for details and rings at weddings. It would also be useful for samller churches/chapels for the ceremonty shots from the back of the chapel. Esp, if the color contrast are as good as promised.
For my HS Srs, I could use it for extreme closeups too. If I can get multiple uses out of it and sell the tubes, then that would be worth the currency outlay for me.
Oh for Pete's sake Petkal, you need this lens. Focus is hella fast. IS works even on fast-moving subjects like Canadian pigeons. Its a great multi-purpose bit of kit, and yes, it even does macro. My only (minor) reservations about this lens are that I feel the bokeh at 2.8 has a slightly less pleasing quality than the previous edition, and the built feels somewhat plastic-y. Just get one.
Sorry I haven't shot any birds with it yet, so I can't share any samples; I'll try to entice a hummer close enough tomorrow.
Oops!!! Sorry, thought this was in the wedding forum. 
