Canon 100mm macro lens

Gary.D

Gary.D

Hoodie
Messages
2,499
Name
Gary Derbridge
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys.

I am looking at buying a canon 100mm macro lens, mainly for ring shots at weddings.

Have any of you got any experience of both the Canon 100mm f2.8 ef and the canon 100mm f2.8 is usm?

As the lens will be used for so little, I am trying to keep costs down how ever if the L lens is really in a league of its own I am happy to make an investment too.

I look forward to your comments

Gary
 
I've just brought the usm version off this forum and am very impressed with how sharp it is.
I understand that canon use the same glass in both the L and usm
 
I presume you're on about the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM versus the older 100mm f/2.8 USM?

I have the L and it's an awesome lens. Compared to the non-L, non-IS lens it has slightly better image quality and build, plus adds weather sealing and obviously the new hybrid IS. Whether those things are worth the price premium only you can decide.

As for whether either lens is suited to ring shots, I'm not sure. Whilst you obviously do get pretty close for these, how close do you want to get? Maybe a full 1:1 macro lens would actually be overkill and you could get away with a "pseudo" macro lens that doesn't do the full 1:1 of a "proper" macro?

That said, either lens would obviously also function as a very sharp 100mm f/2.8 prime which, on a FF body like your 5D would make a good portrait lens too :)
 
Whilst there was a non-USM version of the 100mm, this was quite a while ago now I believe. I've only ever seen the USM version of the 100mm.
 
Gary.D said:
Ok fair enough. Have you had any experience with any of the lenses? Good or Bad?
Click to expand...

As I said above, I own the 100L and it's an amazing lens, but I've not owned nor used any of the other variants of the 100mm Macro so couldn't offer a comparison I'm afraid.

If you can justify/afford the 100L then I recommend it but I think the "standard" 100mm Macro USM will do the job just fine for half the price. Note that this isn't an "older" or "discontinued" lens, they still sell it alongside the L.

I'd steer clear of the much older non-USM variant, if you even see one for sale.
 
Gary.D said:
Ok thanks for the comments guys. I'm just wondering if the non L lens will be up to the job for mainly rings and detail shots. I'm sure it would?!
Click to expand...

More than up to the job I'd think and, as I said, would make a good portrait lens too. Considering you can pick them up for around £300, I'd say it was a bargain.
 
I have owned both of these (had them at the same time for a while), both are very good but the L is in my opinion worth the extra cost. The IQ is noticeably better, it feels better built and the IS does help. The macro AF function on some newer bodies (like the 7D) works really well, the L on a 7D is a killer macro set up. All that said if you are only planning on using it for ring shots the non-IS will definitely be upto the job.
 
Are you going to be using it on a crop or full frame body? If crop, I'd suggest just get the non-L version as it is likely you will just use it for those ring shots, and it is an excellent enough lens. However, if you have a full frame body you'll probably find, as I did, that 100mm is a perfect length for portraits, and as a result it'll be stuck on your lens for a lot more work. So you might want to get the L version if that's the case.

I currently have the non-L version on my 5d. I haven't tried the L version as I haven't ever felt the need to - the non-L quality is so high. However, photography is just a hobby for me really. If I was going to be doing it professionally I'd be itching to have the L. I can imagine the image quality is only very slightly better, but the L build quality/sealing would mean a lot to me if I was out a lot on professional shoots with it.
 
I too have had both - I had the non-L, upgraded to the L and have since downgraded again.

Both are excellent and on occasion I miss the IS, but frankly its not worth the extra 95% of the time and if you;re doing ring shots which I presume will be on a tripod you'd want to turn IS off anyway.

So in short get the non-L and if you don't have one yet an external flash or small lighting rig with the left over cash.
 
I dont own either, but have been looking to buy one for a while.
From my findings, which are 100% my own opinion and not factual, the bokeh on the L is much (much) nicer. I have also heard reports that the focusing on the non-L USM is not as good.
If it was "just" for ring shots then maybe the non-L would do, but Id be willing to have a bet that you start using it for more than just ring shots - where the L would be better
 
I thought the favorite with wedding togs for this kind of thing was simply a close-up lens popped in a shirt pocket and just screwed on as and when - £25. Not sure why you need anything more fancy than that.
 
Look at the 90mm Tamron too. Sharper than the Canon.
 
For a long while I was under the impression that both the L and non L had the same optics but only the build and IS were improved for the L. Recently I found this was not the case, the optics are different but on both lenses they are very good. I have the L but I've used a mate's non L a couple of times and I've been impressed each time. Unless you're going to make the best out of the L and take some decent macro shots you might be better off with the non L. The L is almost twice the price, but I don't think it's twice as good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top