Canon 100mm Macro Vs. 100mm Macro L IS

Joeeznutz

Alright, I know this has been beaten to death in other forums but any owners of both? or someone who can vouch for the L being worth twice the cost?

Should I consider just getting the non L macro version? A friend suggested that since I already have the 70-200 2.8 IS

Matthew Saville

I don't own both, but I have shot extensively with both.

If you're shooting higher than ~12 megapixels, then you kinda need the L. I have had this confirmed in my own tests, and by other owners. 21 megapixels is one thing, let alone the fact that the next camera will probably be over 30. If you're into nature photography and want to make huge prints of this stuff, get the L. Just think about when the older one was designed, and what resolution cameras were at that time... End of story.

If, however, you're just a candid shooter and you maybe shoot weddings or something, and only really need the MACRO capability here and there for a ring or something, then yeah consider other options since the 100 L is so dang expensive. Personally, I'm a full-time wedding photographer and I'd much rather just use a close-up filter on a 50mm or 24-70, since it's so much easier to slap on and it's way more portable for lugging around all day and only using for 5 minutes. (A B+W close-up filter is $60-100 depending on the filter thread diameter)

...Unless, of course, you're one of those minimalist types and you prefer primes instead of huge zooms. I know I HATE lugging around the 70-200 2.8... (I usually shoot Nikon, but same thing...) Anyways, you can also consider the 100 Macro to be a great telephoto candid lens, for when you don't NEED the zoom of a 70-200, but you need bokeh and stabilization. (As opposed to just shooting on an 85 prime...) Personally though, I'm saving up for the new Sigma 150 2.8 OS Macro, since it's 50% longer it really does a better job of "replacing" the 70-200 for wedding photojournalism. And it's pretty dang sharp, sharp enough to be acceptable on 20+ megapixel cameras. At least that's what the reviews say, I haven't tested it myself yet...

Take care, and good luck deciding! What DO you shoot, by the way? Nature? Weddings? Casual? All of the above? ;-)

=Matt=

ziggy53

The primary differences between the "L" version and the previous are:

Stabilization
Weather seals
Slight improvement in bokeh

In most other respects they are going to produce very similar images, and I doubt that anyone could tell any difference just by image results.

ziggy53

Matthew Saville wrote: »

... Personally, I'm a full-time wedding photographer and I'd much rather just use a close-up filter on a 50mm or 24-70, since it's so much easier to slap on and it's way more portable for lugging around all day and only using for 5 minutes. (A B+W close-up filter is $60-100 depending on the filter thread diameter)

...

I absolutely agree. For events a diopter attachment lens will allow very nice results without a separate lens. In this regard the Canon 500D close focus lens is about as good as it gets, even on Nikon lenses.

I haven't used a B+W diopter, but, in addition to the Canon 500D I have both Sony and Minolta, dual element, close focus diopters, and I'm happy with them all.

NeilL

Simple! The L comes with magic!

Neil

puzzledpaul

NeilL wrote: »

Simple! The L comes with magic!

Neil

Maybe, but whether any of it rubs off - and sticks to the user, can be another matter entirely

pp

Brett1000

unless you're a real serious macro shooter the cheaper 100mm should be fine, the cheaper Tamron 90mm 60mm, Canon 60, or Sigma 105, etc. could even be better options

Manfr3d

If you have the money go for the L IS. It is so much nicer to have
IS, weathersealing the superior build quality and faster focus speed.

If money is an issue you will find a very good performer in the
non-L as well. Just without the extras mentioned above.