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 camra 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.
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 camra 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.) 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.
Nov 18, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Previous versions of PetKal's message #7793104 « Do I need 100L ? »
