When I try to do higher magnification shots using 100 f/2.8, handheld and in natural light, I often run into problems with focus inaccuracy resulting from axial lens wobble. I somehow manage to brace myself in order to get a sufficiently sharp shot, yet focus is often not where I indended it to be.
The enclosed sample shot is typical......it probably took 10 shots until I got one where the two tiny water droplets were in reasonable focus.
Therefore, I must ask how is that IS can help me under those conditions ?
Now, there is one indirect way I can see in which IS can help with the focus goodness.
If I can lower shutter speed by two stops and then close the lens accordingly, there will be some minor increase in DoF which in turn will give a bit more leeway for the axial lens wobble.
I bought the 100L, very good IQ in terms of sharpness, color and boken but I still rare use it since I always use the 24-70L on the 5D2 for family and walk around.
musclepics wrote:
You have already have a 100/2.8 AND 135L and still want a 100L?
You have a serious problem, and I mean that.
Its not a serious problem. Some people gamble, some do drugs. This problem is not a big deal. Recent studies even suggest camera lenses are actually GOOD for you.
The largest difference between the two lenses for me is that the new one gives a higher level of user satisfaction due to the better quality build and feel.
When using the 100mm classic, one feels like they are using a cheaply made thing that is about to fall apart. When using the 100L, it feels much more high tech...this often translates into confidence and satisfaction for me when taking pictures
Hey Peter, take the plunge already! I loved my old 100/2.8 macro .... but I eventually sold it, along with my 135L to get the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125. While the CV 125 has fabulous IQ (yes, better than the Canon 100) the lack of AF was getting to me because I find it too slow for moving subjects. It's really a lens that you should use with a tripod. And then came the 100L which IMO is better than the old version in every way - and the IS is icing on the cake.
Yes, you can definitely use this lens for anything and everything and it will do the job without any fuss. The light weight makes it a real joy to carry and use.
I will be getting my 7D on Friday and will shoot some birds this weekend with this lens on the 7D. I have not used the lens much since I got it about 10 days ago - aside from the flower test shots I took, hand-held - and was very pleased with that.
Peter, As I've said in numerous posts in this forum, it's a fabulous lens. Excellent, razor sharp image quality, creamy bokeh, definately no slouch in autofocus speed, very effective IS, solid build quality (despite some people moaning it's plastic, so are many other L lenses) and versatile to boot! When I saw this lens was coming out, I WANTED this lens and I sold my 135L to fund the purchase and I haven't regretted it for one minute. But only you can decide if you need or want it.
1. It is not a discontinued lens yet there is no a parts shortage where you would need a backup copy also (50 1.0, 200 1.8)
2. If you gotta ask then you don't need it.
3. The the birds and ducks that do your BIF and DIF all need a rest from all those flights they don't have the strength rightnow so you can test yet another lens.
4. You would be too close to a brick wall (macro) to do a meaningful brick wall test
5. You might catch up to gasrocks for a lens collection, and pass me.
6. I have at lens 1 Canon less you don't have.
So save your money you don't need yet another lens. At least until you make you next trip to a camera shop. The buy it. Mines really nice
PetKal wrote:
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. ...Show more →
i think it might be good for taking macro video of bugs in the cases where you need to handhold to track along with them, someday i might give it a try because of that, but not anytime soon i dont think, don't have the money now anyway
but generally it seems like a lot of $$$ since the non-L is already so great
