Canon 100mm 2.8 vs Canon 100mm 2.8 L IS

[sydneykimi]

The price difference is around $520 vs $945.
Has anyone experienced with both lens? I'm using the regular 100mm 2.8 and would like to know if it is worth it to upgrade to the L series IS version, in terms of image quality.

 

[Overread]

Image quality wise the 100mm f2.8 IS L makes a small improvement over the original; however the original lens was already a very good performer optically (as most macro lenses are). Therefore whilst there is an improvment its not a night and day difference.
The big difference is in areas such as AF speed (from which I understand the L lens is somewhat faster and possibly one of the fastest macro lenses in the AF area) and in the inclusion of the hybrid IS mode.

 

[Hack]

I've had both lenses. I up-graded and now own the IS version. Both are great. I'm still not sure if it is 400 hundred bucks better. But I have to admit, the IS is really nice for hand-holding on the spur of the moment. But In bright sunlight, I don't think the IS is better (super fast shutter speeds equalizes them), but in the early AM or late PM, when light is lacking, the IS is clearly the winner to me. I don't remember one's AF being faster than the other's, both are real fast.

Hack

 

[usayit]

From the samples I've seen, the differences is slight but IS is a nice thing to have. Whether its worth the extra money is just testament to how much value the 100mm f/2.8 macro (non L) brings to the table.

 

[tat1973]

I guess the money difference is where IS at. In terms of the quality of image they're both great optics and if used on tripod to shoot jewelry I don't think it is worth the money to upgrade.

 

[Hack]

I guess the money difference is where IS at. In terms of the quality of image they're both great optics and if used on tripod to shoot jewelry I don't think it is worth the money to upgrade.

+1 to this. When I used a tripod, then one was no better than the other. $400 is a lot for IS, huh?