Anyone upgrading to the new Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro?

Manfr3d

Hi,

I am curious if anyone plans to get the new L Macro with IS. The price is
almost twice that of the non-L 100mm 2.8 Macro which itself is a superb
performer but the MFT on Canon's site suggest the new one is even
better:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=19091

I was planning to buy a 100mm Macro before christmas this year.
Do you think the L is worth the $500 premium over the old macro?

Awais Yaqub

Manfr3d wrote:

Hi,

I am curious if anyone plans to get the new L Macro with IS. The price is
almost twice that of the non-L 100mm 2.8 Macro which itself is a superb
performer but the MFT on Canon's site suggest the new one is even
better:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=19091

I was planning to buy a 100mm Macro before christmas this year.
Do you think the L is worth the $500 premium over the old macro?

Hi there, but why not purchase MP-e65 for less than 100mm L IS ?
I think both lenses are targeted to serious macro shooters. And all 100mm macro lenses are superb

chrisjohnson

Manfr3d wrote:

Hi,

I am curious if anyone plans to get the new L Macro with IS. The price is
almost twice that of the non-L 100mm 2.8 Macro which itself is a superb
performer but the MFT on Canon's site suggest the new one is even
better:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=19091

I was planning to buy a 100mm Macro before christmas this year.
Do you think the L is worth the $500 premium over the old macro?

I won't be getting it myself. I love my 100mm macro lens but it spends 80% of its working life on a tripod. If I take it out to shoot from the hand then its a sunny day. And I am not an obsessive bug hunter.

I feel rich because I could afford a great macro lens in the first place - it is not central to my photography.

I can well imagine that the dedicated bug hunters will appreciate the IS. Those pesky critters have a habit of shifting themselves faster than you can move the tripod.

Photoskipper

It would be ideal if the 180 mm Macro comes with IS.
I own the 100 mm already, definitely will not change it to IS. Rather to pay a bit more to get the 180 mm

Moogle Pepper

I'd love to upgrade it. But as it is not part of my main shooting habits, it is on my low priority list.

puzzledpaul

Imo it's more about who's using it and how.

LordV uses a Sigma of similar focal length and I've not seen too many comments about how blurry / unsharp his pics are

<< Hi there, but why not purchase MP-e65 for less than 100mm L IS >>

Two totally different beasts (apart from the 1:1 overlap)
The mpe doesn't focus to infinity (max wkg distance 101mm @1:1) and the chances of getting anything useful with any dof in ambient light at the higher mags is extremely small, imo.

Using same generally requires a dedicated flash rig - either of Canon's own macro lighting solutions - or a std flash + arm (as LordV ... and others, including myself) use.

The 100mm is a 'normal' lens ... even the older, non-usm Canon (as I use) isn't too shabby either.

<< Do you think the L is worth the $500 premium over the old macro? >>
No idea - but it's not on my gear list

pp

Awais Yaqub

I agree about technicalities involved in MP-e65. But looking at price tag of new 100mm it seems like it is targeted to serious shooters who already want more magnification that MP65 offers

So why a macro lover (whose love is to get close) purcahse new 100mm and let MPe 65 go ?

I personally think keeping old 100mm macro and purchasing new MPE65 is way to go for macro lover.

ziggy53

Awais Yaqub wrote:

I agree about technicalities involved in MP-e65. But looking at price tag of new 100mm it seems like it is targeted to serious shooters who already want more magnification that MP65 offers

So why a macro lover (whose love is to get close) purcahse new 100mm and let MPe 65 go ?

I personally think keeping old 100mm macro and purchasing new MPE65 is way to go for macro lover.

The new Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8L Macro IS USM is more than just a macro lens, it is also presumably capable of hand-held portraits and other general use telephoto applications.

Besides the differences "puzzledpaul" mentioned the MPE-65 is manual focus, making it a "very" special purpose lens. The 100mm, f/2.8L Macro is touted to have an IS that is actually functional (2 stops compensation) at macro distances. It will be interesting to see if this is true.

paddler4

I was intending to buy the old 100mm soon and will probably spring for the new one instead. The optics of the old one are so good that I would not spend more on that account. However, motion is a very severe problem in handheld macro shooting, at least for me, even with the shorter lens (60mm f2.8) I now use. With extension tubes, it's even more difficult.

And this new IS system is supposed to correct for motion along the focal plane, which is part of the problem with macro.

It's a lot of money for IS, but for shooting handheld macro, I reluctantly decided that it is worth it. For people with steadier hands or more skill, perhaps not.

puzzledpaul

<< I personally think keeping old 100mm macro and purchasing new MPE65 is way to go for macro lover. >>

Yes, I'd tend to agree ... and it's exactly what I did nearly 2 yrs ago ... however, the original question was

<< I was planning to buy a 100mm Macro before christmas this year.
Do you think the L is worth the $500 premium over the old macro? >>

Which I understood to mean that the author didn't actually have a macro lens of this focal length - at all - and was considering whether (or not) the new arrival on the scene was going to be worth the extra $$, compared with the std one.

If my interpretation is correct, then whilst nothing's carved in stone, the usual ... and oft quoted suggested route ... is to get the 'feel' for macro with something like a 100 'standard' lens, experiment - then (if like such subject matter) consider the mpe - if you want to get considerably closer (ignoring various high mag 'special' rigs and stacking s/w).

pp

Manfr3d

puzzledpaul wrote:

Which I understood to mean that the author didn't actually have a macro lens of this focal length - at all - and was considering whether (or not) the new arrival on the scene was going to be worth the extra $$, compared with the std one.

If my interpretation is correct, then whilst nothing's carved in stone, the usual ... and oft quoted suggested route ... is to get the 'feel' for macro with something like a 100 'standard' lens, experiment - then (if like such subject matter) consider the mpe - if you want to get considerably closer (ignoring various high mag 'special' rigs and stacking s/w).

pp

Thanks for the suggestions! I am not a deicated macro shooter and would
use the lens (together with my macro crazy gf) also (mostly) as a short
general purpose tele (aquariums, portraits, street, product photography,
closeups of "stuff") and not solely as 1:1 macro.

My current lens lineup in this focal length range includes a 85mm f1.8 and
a 70-200 f4 non-IS. I used to own a 180mm macro but sold it because it
was pretty much a macro only lens (bulky and slow af).

Maybe I should get my gf the non-L macro at half the price and invest the
rest in a 135mm f2 instead. Decisions decisons ...

puzzledpaul

<< My current lens lineup in this focal length range includes a 85mm f1.8 and
a 70-200 f4 non-IS. >>

Don't have / never used an 85mm, but I do have the same 70 -200 model as yourself.

It might be worth considering using / trying either of these with a set of extension tubes - which'll be relatively inexpensive and can be used with a whole range of lenses.

Give you a feel for whether macro is your 'thing' without breaking the bank ... and still be of use if you decide to go ahead with a 100mm macro.
(full set of tubes with this lens takes you to 2:1 instead of its native 1:1 max)

There's a lot of relevant info here, imo - but the info re using a 70-200 with tubes (my posts 11,16,22) might be of specific interest.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=111683&highlight=macro

<< Maybe I should get my gf the non-L macro at half the price ... >>

... or, let her buy her own ... and you use hers

pp

chrisjohnson

Ziggy makes a good point. I use my 100mm macro additionally as a short tele/portrait lens and it works fine. In this situation the IS should be a plus, although the lens is anyway bright and I tend to use it in good light.

Still, I think if I was shopping specifically for a short tele in the L class I would be more tempted by some of the other speciality lenses, like the 135mm which people rave about or even the 200mm..

Now I have a 70-300mm which covers the 100mm also (obviously) and I don't suppose I'll be taking the 100mm macro out much unless I want to do macro specifically.

IS is always cool, so I suppose it depends how much money you have. For me on an essentially macro lens, I don't need it. I don't really need auto-focus either.

Yet to hear from an early morning bug hunter macro fanatic who really needs this lens and sometime shoots in the pouring rain with a weather proof camera, although I am sure there are a very few. As they say in marketing, Canon is filling the shelf to ensure all possible options are covered and there is absolutely no excuse to buy from a competitor.

paddler4

No, but you have heard from a bug hunting macro fanatic who hunts bugs mostly on dry afternoons:D

If I had a FF and were not doing a lot of hand-held macro, I wouldn't spring for the extra $450. With my crop sensor, still probably not. I use a Tamron 28-75 and don't find the lack of IS bothersome most of the time, even racked out, and back in the days of film, I used to use a 135 handheld all the time without a thought. Handheld macro, however, is another beast altogether, and it is a lot worse when you are using flash (harder to hold things steady) or extension tubes. It would be interesting to see Canon's expectations about who will buy this and why.

goldenballs wrote:

Ziggy makes a good point. I use my 100mm macro additionally as a short tele/portrait lens and it works fine. In this situation the IS should be a plus, although the lens is anyway bright and I tend to use it in good light.

Still, I think if I was shopping specifically for a short tele in the L class I would be more tempted by some of the other speciality lenses, like the 135mm which people rave about or even the 200mm..

Now I have a 70-300mm which covers the 100mm also (obviously) and I don't suppose I'll be taking the 100mm macro out much unless I want to do macro specifically.

IS is always cool, so I suppose it depends how much money you have. For me on an essentially macro lens, I don't need it. I don't really need auto-focus either.

Yet to hear from an early morning bug hunter macro fanatic who really needs this lens and sometime shoots in the pouring rain with a weather proof camera, although I am sure there are a very few. As they say in marketing, Canon is filling the shelf to ensure all possible options are covered and there is absolutely no excuse to buy from a competitor.

chrisjohnson

paddler4 wrote:

No, but you have heard from a bug hunting macro fanatic who hunts bugs mostly on dry afternoons:D

If I had a FF and were not doing a lot of hand-held macro, I wouldn't spring for the extra $450. With my crop sensor, still probably not. I use a Tamron 28-75 and don't find the lack of IS bothersome most of the time, even racked out, and back in the days of film, I used to use a 135 handheld all the time without a thought. Handheld macro, however, is another beast altogether, and it is a lot worse when you are using flash (harder to hold things steady) or extension tubes. It would be interesting to see Canon's expectations about who will buy this and why.

http://goldenballs.smugmug.com/photos/620535969_dbDaU-M.jpg

I get your point. I shot this one a couple of weeks ago without IS - the wind was blowing. Technically a lot of crits - eg too busy, but I like it. Would it be better with IS? - not sure.

For the extra money for the IS version I could spend a week in the Canary Islands. You are right, but I am not at all sure that it is worth it for me.