Canon 100mm macro L vs non L

[cyberchickgeek]

Hi peeps, Some advice, I'm a canon user all my gears canon, I'm after macro lens and obviously I'm opting for the canon100mm after watching vids and reviews I'm stuck between making te decision of a non L or L version of this, obviously the L has better optics, better build and IS but people who bought the non L haven't complained about missing these features...what's your thoughts peeps should I save the extra cash and go for L?
Btw all my lenses are L apart from my 50mm 1.4 so I am used to having the better quality lens Cheers
Emma

 

[Overread]

The original was and still is a very sharp and great lens. It's no slouch and whilst it might not have L its well built and more than up to the task of taking tack sharp shots.

The new one features a few new things:
1) Improved optics - modest upgrade rather than a night and day difference

2) Hybrid IS - the IS in the L isn't like normal IS. It tries to also take into account the back and forth sway of the body that you get when shooting macro and not just the up down/left right sway that normal IS deals with. It makes the IS more suitable for shooting macro shots with - its a boon to have in a lens but not a necessity

 

[cyberchickgeek]

Thanks, mmmm still flipping stuck then lol just don't want to get the standard one then wish if got the IS one...I am mainly using this for bugs and instects so the IS one is tempting me

 

[Overread]

Have you got a flash and flash bracket setup?

 

[ronlane]

just don't want to get the standard one then wish if got the IS one.

If that's the only thought, then I think you've made the decision. Now if you are also thinking that if you got the L and worried that you could have saved money with the cheaper glass.

 

[cyberchickgeek]

Lol thanks for advice

 

[Dao]

My macro lens do not have IS. For insect photos, I use flash, so I think IS may not help too much anyway. But then again, I have not try the Canon IS macro lens myself.

 

[jay956]

I was in your spot a few weeks ago and decided to go with the Tokina 100mm. I have only ever had Canon lenses and was skeptical about the other brands but I couldn't be happier.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I had the original 100mm Macro and sold it for the L when it came out. Optically, you'll have a tough time telling them apart. As far as build quality. . . the L is plastic, the original isn't. I went with the L for the IS, figuring it would be more useful. As it turns out I only ever use it on a tripod anyway.

 

[CAP]

Hi, I have both the 100mm Canon Macro and the Canon 100mm L and i really cant see that much of a difference expect with my 1dx auto focus is a tad better on the L but also the L lens requires a extra bracket to use the canon macro ring flash with DOES NOT come with it or the flash.

Example

With the 100mm Macro L shooting at a spider on a web it will not focus in and out trying to achieve focus as much as the NON-L 100mm. Plus the l is a little easier to hold non L is kinda snubby and short.

Also L 100mm has more settings for distance to infinite in focus than non L.

 

[CAP]

 

[Derrel]

I've heard it said that image stabilization system works LESS well at close distances than at longer distances. I have owned the EF 100 f/2.8 USM macro, which is the second version, the internal focusing one that is still current, for 7 years. It's a slowish focuser, SOLIDLY made, and completely unremarkable. It gives sharp-sided, heptagonal bokeh balls on out of focus point light sources, so it has ugly bokeh. But not every shot has point OOF sources. I have also a Tamron 90mm AF-SP macro, which creates "prettier" images in the out of focus areas behind the focused distance. There are subtle differences in the way many lenses "render" or "draw", and those differences often show up mostly on natural-world clutter, like OOF sticks and leaves and OOF "stuff". ALL modern macro lenses are adequately sharp. SHarpness is not really a concern as much as how the pictures "look". I for one think the Tamron 90mm macro designs of the last 15 years are so are "prettier" imagers than the Canon 100mm EF is. I don't own the new L-IS macro, and have not been interested in it enough to see how it images.

The one macro I was interested in was the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX-HSM, the one BEFORE it went to OS status. WOW--what a gorgeous imager that lens was. Just beautiful bokeh and drawing style, it created some of the most-beautiful macro images I've ever seen. Plus, it has that longer focal length and that longer working distance that makes so,so many things easier.

 

[Overread]

Derrel what happened when it went OS or have you just not heard much (must admit I've not heard much of it! )

 

[Derrel]

Derrel what happened when it went OS or have you just not heard much (must admit I've not heard much of it! )

I just wanted to make it clear that the pre-OS version was an outstanding, lovely imager. I spent about a month traipsing all over the web, tracking down sample images made with the pre-OS version, and was all set to get one. I'm not sure if the new OS lens is the same optical design or not. I know sometimes a re-design and an updated design that has stabilization changes things. The weird thing to me was that the original 150mm Sigma EX Macro was HUGE in Malaysia, among beauty and portrait photographers, and it had a beautiful "look" to its images with natural vegetation type backgrounds. I ended up buying a Nikon 200 f/2 instead, and I never did keep up on the newer, OS version of the Sigma 150; for all I know it could be as good, better, or worse than the original design.

 

[snerd]

I've only ever had the new L version. I love it! It takes great portraits too!! And when I open my bag, all of those red rings just look cool Lol!!!


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk 2 Pro