Real world macro advice

[CoBilly]

I've decided my next lens will be a macro & I'm leaning towards the canon 100mm. Now, I've read plenty of reviews that say the non-L 100mm is good but I would like some insight from people that have used the canon macro lenses extensively. Is the non-L macro really as good as its reviews? Is the L lens significantly better than the non-L? I'm still a beginner but I could certainly justify making that my first L lens if it's definitely worth the extra cost

 

[jaomul]

I have the non L and think it is great. Below are 2 examples and a link to a discussion on both

100mm - L vs. non-L - Canon Digital Photography Forums


What you lookin at? by jaomul, on Flickr


White flower by jaomul, on Flickr

 

[CoBilly]

Thanks Jaomul. I think I'm still leaning towards the non-L unless I can find a smokin deal on one

 

[Dao]

Most of the dedicated macro lens are good optically. The difference between them are the build quality, IS/VR/VC/OS, AF or internal focus or not. Even the $100 Cosina macro lens (if you can still find them) got good reviews.

This photo is taken with the older generation of the EF 100mm macro lens (Out of production). (Non USM and lens extended all the way at 1:1 ratio)

So around this 100mm range, beside the Canon macro lens, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are also good (based on the reviews and results I saw). But if I am going to buy a new macro lens now, I think I may go with the current Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens (Non-L). The main reason is just the internal focusing.

 

[RedRobin]

But if I am going to buy a new macro lens now, I think I may go with the current Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens (Non-L). The main reason is just the internal focusing.

....Isn't the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens internal focussing (the front ring doesn't turn)?

If you shoot in the field then surely IS, and not necessarily needing to hump around a tripod, is an important advantage.

Given the advanced communication between latest-state-of-the-art camera bodies and lenses, I wouldn't consider any brand other than a Canon lens on a Canon body. But doubtless that's a long debate for a different thread discussion.

 

[RedRobin]

What you lookin at? by jaomul, on Flickr

....Very nice Damselfy shot. I run 'UK Dragonflies & Damselflies' group on facebook if you feel like joining.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/561222590593478/

 

[CoBilly]

I'm glad someone resurrected this thread. I've got another macro equipment question, this time about extension tubes. Are there any differences between the canon and any aftermarket tubes that allow electronic adjustments? I think I'll get some tubes so I can at least tinker with some macro before I can save up for a dedicated lens. I've changed my mind a few times about the lens and am now leaning towards the 100L.

 

[RedRobin]

I don't know enough about tubes to be able to help on that aspect but another advantage of the 100mm 2.8L IS Macro lens is that it also functions well as a 100mm prime lens for general photography.

I have yet to hear a bad word about this particular lens. IS (Image Stabilisation) may not be on everybody's wanted list but surely there must be times when it's a real bonus.

 

[Olympus E300]

I don't want to hijack this thread but, DAMN! That image is stunning!!