"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."
Before this post got hijacked by extreme 100L lovers who prefer to ignore photozone.de and same time believe in neverland news from canonrumors.com as in post below I would say - No I don't need 100L, but it is up to you PetKal….
I own EF 100mm twice before as well as 180L, both great lenses but practically both slow on AF for non macro purpose. If you need to shot flowers 135L still great options for this reason.
IS will not help with focus shits (front / backward movements to maintain focus). I have the 100 non-L (got a great price) and no plans to upgrade. I'm sure the L is fine though.
I have not used the old 100 f/2.8, so I have no image quality comparisons there. I will say that compared to my 100 f/2, the 100L has better color. It's got that trademark 'L' color. AF speed, again, I can't comment with respect to the 100 f/2.8, but it is very nearly on par with the 100 f/2 and my old 135L in that respect with the focus limiter set (which, at 0.5m to infinity, is still a much larger range than any non-macro lens in this focal length).
Image quality wise, MTF shows the new 100L to be sharper than the 100 f/2.8. Would you see the difference? I'm not sure. I will tell you that the 100L is the FIRST lens in this range that I notice a quite visible sharpness improvement over the 70-200 f/4L IS. My old 135L I thought was on par...the 100L is sharper. It is very likely the sharpest lens I have ever owned. Contrast is outstanding, and there is absolutely no dropoff in color and contrast wide open. Sharpness wide open is stunning, with only the very far corners showing a little dropoff (but still very good in the corners).
From what I've seen, you'll get a little more red/blue CA than with the non-L 100 f/2.8, but it's easily correctible in Photoshop in the few situations where it's visible (more noticeable at infinity than at portrait or macro distances, where I have yet to see it).
I use mine mainly as a portrait lens, with the wonderful ability to combine my macro lens into my portrait lens. It's barely left my camera since I got it.
Oh, and the IS works wonderfully well.
Is it worth it from the 100 f/2.8? That's hard to say. The optical improvements are there from what I've seen, but whether they're significant enough to notice in a print...that's a tougher call. For me, it was a great purchase, though.
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 ?
Yes.
OT: I just can't believe I'm reading this. IIANM you have two 200/1.8 lenses and one 200/2 IS. So what if you have 135/2 and 100/2.8 already? Go out and get it. And if you want to calm your conscience just sell the non-IS.
MountainTop, Jman, Dawei, Bobby, Sir Loin make a convincing user's case for the lens.
Very broadly speaking, I haven't sensed such enthusiastic reception of a "regularly" priced L lens since the 70-200 f/4 IS introduction.
Robert's (Burningheart) direction given to me appears well thought out on the surface of it, however, I believe there could be some ulterior motives for not wanting me to add another lens to my kit.......you see, the hobby of collecting gears is extremely competitive.
Sav1977 understands that it takes one to know one.
Leonid (Breitling) still doesn't appear to be sold on the lens.......perhaps showing him some nice fast BIF taken with it would help change his mind.
While Yakim and a few others might like to see me incarcerated in a debtors jail , a few people tried to appeal to my parsimonious side and save me from what is possibly a needless expense. That is a good sense of direction and is always appreciated.
Yet, one must not ignore those 28 individuals (33%) either who voted for going out and doing photography instead of buying any more stuff. That's one fundamentally sound advice.
> Leonid (Breitling) still doesn't appear to be sold on the lens.......perhaps showing him some nice fast BIF taken with it would help change his mind.
Peter that is because I use to own or own now almoust all popular L lenses from Canon, 2-3 maybe left only You are right, so far all shots I saw been done by "I love my lens!!!" happy new owners and I am not at same level anymore Photozone.de review on FF doesn't impressed me either but that is different story
However I am sure it is great L lens as any other...
Peter I read somewhere that the IS of the 100L doesn't have a panning option making it a useless option for BIF... Hey I gotta look for a reason not to get it... but it is so hard to resist...
Oh yeah btw do you keep track of the lenses you least use and make an effort to use them?
Peter, I voted for the last option, always a good choice, but have since changed my mind. If you let Burningheart get to far ahead in the "I have more than you" it's possible that Canada could start leaning to the west a little to much making it uncomfortable for us east coasters. Please buy the lens.
dolina wrote:
Peter I read somewhere that the IS of the 100L doesn't have a panning option making it a useless option for BIF... Hey I gotta look for a reason not to get it... but it is so hard to resist...
Oh yeah btw do you keep track of the lenses you least use and make an effort to use them?
Paolo, I never use the panning IS options anyways even on lenses that have it.
However, if the response time to an emerging target is 1-3 seconds or so, I turn IS off because it acts as a bit of an impediment.
I typically cycle thru all lenses by keeping them on one camera for about a week, one at a time. In between, dfferent lenses are also used if a specialised need arises, e.g., photographing some distant Buffle Head ducks. In such case I will reach for a 500mm lens.
PetKal wrote:
Paolo, I never use the panning IS options anyways even on lenses that have it.
However, if the response time to an emerging target is 1-3 seconds or so, I turn IS off because it acts as a bit of an impediment.
I typically cycle thru all lenses by keeping them on one camera for about a week, one at a time. In between, dfferent lenses are also used if a specialised need arises, e.g., photographing some distant Buffle Head ducks. In such case I will reach for a 500mm lens.
Interesting. I try to use 1 lens a day to cycle through them in 2 weeks. But sometimes you just want to do something else...
john_edwards wrote:
Peter, I voted for the last option, always a good choice, but have since changed my mind. If you let Burningheart get to far ahead in the "I have more than you" it's possible that Canada could start leaning to the west a little to much making it uncomfortable for us east coasters. Please buy the lens.
John
That's a clever thought, John.
That's perhaps a reason for California breaking off the main continent some day.......very many loaded collectors live in the state.
Appeal to your parsimonious side will just not work. Or at least, that's what everybody keeps telling me. You see, you are not the only one struggling with these problems.....
Yakim Peled wrote:
Appeal to your parsimonious side will just not work. Or at least, that's what everybody keeps telling me. You see, you are not the only one struggling with these problems.....
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim, I think your wife might do you in if you continue on that TS path.
I have the 100L, and it is worth it (to my wife and I anyway). We also have the old 100 and the 180L. IS is worth it for handheld macro -- it easily adds two stops of advantage. I think handheld macro is a non-starter without it. On a full frame, the 180 provides extra reach, which is an advantage, but again you really want a tripod.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Appeal to your parsimonious side will just not work. Or at least, that's what everybody keeps telling me. You see, you are not the only one struggling with these problems.....
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Sorry for the hijack Peter but
Yakim
A solution to your problem show your wife some of the pictures of the monstorous collections out there and she might have a little sympathy for you, furthermore show her how the value of lens tend to be stable so you do not lose much if you ever resell(especially compared to the depreciation of a car). Furthermore play on the fact that having more camera lens will keep you out of trouble as we are too busy fiddling with our gears. Lastly take your wife on a fashion shoot, buy her a new wardrobe, pour her some wine and shoot nothing but her and tell her how lovely she is.
Now Peter are you still following this thread, I thought by now you would have bought the lens.
I would say - No I don't need 100L, but it is up to you PetKal…. 