Canon 100mm f2.8 macro

Messages
65
Name
Jan
Edit My Images
No
I am looking at buying either the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM or the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS USM, my question is: Is the L version of this lens so much better to warrant the price difference? I know it has IS but would there be a marked IQ diffirence?
 
Not according to tests - the main difference is the IS.

I have the non IS version and it's excellent - ultra sharp and good contrast.

The IS version is only good if you want to use it handheld or for non macro work.

.
 
I had this desicion to make in the last two weeks, but I decided to go for the L lens.

The IS is very usefull to me, not so much for proper macro, but for other uses of the lens as I have shakey hands.
Up close, the IS isnt as good as I wish it could be, but it still helps I took this shot handheld, which Im sure I wouldnt have done without IS.

1037593106_grassdrop.jpg
 
Thanks for the answers, I have also read and then read again but am struggling to select between the 2. I am thinking of the non IS purely on financial reasons.
 
Thanks for the answers, I have also read and then read again but am struggling to select between the 2. I am thinking of the non IS purely on financial reasons.

That was my reasoning until I saw Jacobs had the L for £599 brand new.
I thought Id treat my self. :love:
 
I found a used 100mm f2.8 USM on here that had my name written on it, so soon I will be able to give macro photography a go or is it a shot.:thumbs:
 
i had the non-L version of the 100mm macro. I had to sell it because I didn't really use it for macro work and more for portraits, for which there are better lenses out there.

basically, it is sharp. very sharp. lovely for portraits and not too heavy. if you don't need IS, then save a few quid.

Take a look here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674

the difference is pretty much imperceptible. it truly comes down to IS. if i had the cash, i'd buy the non L macro in a flash.
 
Back
Top