Canon 100mm Macro L series vs. non

[studioone]

I am gearing up to purchase a Canon 100mm Macro and I cannot decide between the L series or the non. The biggest difference I see is the image stabilization on the L series and the non does not. I am questioning if I really need image stabilization on a macro lense. What are you guys thoughts or experience with the lense?

 

[Derrel]

I have owned the non-L USM version for quite a while...it's a pretty good macro lens, and is available relatively affordably on the used market. It is not a speed demon in terms of focusing, but it's a solid performer. My feeling about the non-L model is that its weakest characteristic is the sharp-sided bokeh rendering on out of focus points of light, on raindrops, and in foliage backgrounds; it produced very sharp-sided, and I think very ugly, geometric renderings on points of out of focus highlight matter...which can actually be pretty large expanses in many macro and close-up situations in the natural world (meaning outdoors).

I think the Tamron 90mm AF macro models have prettier out-of-focus rendering characteristics than the non-L Canon USM (I am referring to the second model of this lens...there was an older, NON-internal focusing 100/2.8 EF macro) EF Macro. Of course, not every scene will have OOF background highlights...but many times in the spring and summer, there WILL be backgrounds that have OOF points of light from a wide variety of subjects--water, foliage, the ocean, rain or dew drops, whatever...just something to keep in mind. I'm not familiar with the rendering characteristics of the new L-macro from Canon.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Why would you not buy L glass if you can afford it?

 

[compasiune]

Optical quality on both lenses is the same! If you dont need the weather sealing and IS + red ring then you should stay with the non L lens.

 

[LostLensCap]

Here are reviews of both lenses by Photozone.

Canon EF 100mm f 2.8 USM macro full format - Review Test Report

Canon EF 100mm f 2.8 USM L IS macro Full Format - Review Test Report

 

[fjrabon]

The L has very slightly better bokeh. The autofocus on the L is slightly better IMHO. The L also has the best image stabilization I've seen on a macro, which is important if you don't have an incredible tripod.

Sharpness, color, contrast are basically identical.

If most of my macro was being shot on a very good tripod Id absolutely go with the non L. If I was using a less sturdy, more portable, tripod or even ****GASP**** shooting macro hand held, I'd probably opt for the L.

 

[LostLensCap]

I'm a Nikon/Sony shooter and a yr or so ago I was buying a Macro. I ended up buying the Nikon 105mm Nikkor which is similar to the L series you are considering. I shoot a lot of hand held closeups of living bugs. The VR (vibration reduction) really helps. Also I think if I had a lesser lens I would have always wondered if I had made a mistake. I'd go for a used or refurb L series as you can always get your money back if you decide to sell it.

 

[JacaRanda]

Some of the same info in a different thread. Canon 100mm macro L vs non L Photography Forum

I have the L version and have no complaints other than not using it enough. When you don't have a tripod, and flash setup, the IS comes in handy when you tend to sway like a drunkard on handheld macro shots. (never tried using a non IS version so take it for what it's worth).