Canon 100mm macros?

dougan

dougan

Messages
1,409
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
Is the L version worth nearly twice the price of the the standard Canon 100mm macro? Is it that superior?
 
Erm... I have the L series and Tbh I can't fault it in any way shape or form! Iv never used the non L version but the build quality of the L is amazing plus its weather proof and the focus range lock thingy is very helpful.
 
duttytd said:
Erm... I have the L series and Tbh I can't fault it in any way shape or form! Iv never used the non L version but the build quality of the L is amazing plus its weather proof and the focus range lock thingy is very helpful.
Click to expand...

all of this, and better background blur

0j9w552522.jpg

This photo was the reason I had to sell the non L. This was at f4, I wanted to shoot at a smaller aperture to get all the badges in focus but if I stopped down any more the bokeh showed a very obvious non-circular shape, In the end I had to shoot this piece with a different lens. If you can overlook it's foibles the 100mm macro is lovely, the 100L is possibly worth the price but only if you need it's performance
 
Due to receiving a tax rebate, I have just ordered the 100mmL instead of the 100mm non L macro.

This will be my first ever L lens, hope it is worth the money!
 
dougan said:
Due to receiving a tax rebate, I have just ordered the 100mmL instead of the 100mm non L macro.

This will be my first ever L lens, hope it is worth the money!
Click to expand...

It is, it was my first L series glass and I now have the bug. BUT I can't let the bug grab me to much as I can't afford to keep buying them
 
If you like hand holding for macros Dougie then the I.S. version is definitely worth it in my opinion. I had the Canon 100 non IS for several years and upgraded to the IS about five weeks ago - I have got more sharp hand held shots in that 5 weeks than I did in three years with the non IS lens, the 2 stops you get at near 1:1 distances makes all the difference for me. I also think that general IQ (colour, contrast ....) is a little better with the L.
 
Roy C said:
2 stops you get at near 1:1 distances makes all the difference for me.
Click to expand...

not only in hand hold-abilty, but also in letting in more ambient light- when you're shooting with strobes at iso 100 f11, the background goes totally black. By dropping the shutter to a slower speed you can reclaim some detail in the background=better pictures
 
I have the L version, but have never owned the non L, however for macro, I don't the rate the IS. At macro you only gain 1 or 2 stops and I have since read many opinions that the IS can be fairly ineffective under certain settings. Depending on camera body, it is just as easy to increase the ISO.
Having said that, the optical quality and bokeh are superb.
 
Peter10d said:
I have the L version, but have never owned the non L, however for macro, I don't the rate the IS. At macro you only gain 1 or 2 stops and I have since read many opinions that the IS can be fairly ineffective under certain settings. Depending on camera body, it is just as easy to increase the ISO.
Having said that, the optical quality and bokeh are superb.
Click to expand...

Ineffective on what settings?
 
I gotta say that I trialed both lenses in Jessops Trafford centre and the non-l really left me disappointed and the L series left me gobsmacked.

The L series will be my next purchase without doubt.
 
lancsoatcake said:
I gotta say that I trialed both lenses in Jessops Trafford centre and the non-l really left me disappointed and the L series left me gobsmacked.
Click to expand...

What did you find disappointing and gobsmacking about the two lenses, Daniel?
 
Thanks for that Daniel!
I find it very hard to justify spending this amount of money on one lens.
I ordered mine online from Jessops, and with the Quidco cash back, which has already tracked at £30, the lens cost me £709.

It should be with me tomorrow, cannot wait! Trouble is my partner thinks it is the Canon 60mm macro which I showed her in John Lewis a few days ago, but I convinced her that the 100mm version was a far superior lens, hope she cannot tell the difference with the L version!
 
I use the non l and for £300 second hand it's an absolute cracker. It's sharp as anything and very nicely made. The af speed is good too. IS would be useful however. Don't understand the bokeh comments though, most lenses will have non round bokeh at smaller apertures and often you find yourself working at very small apertures when taking macro pictures. To be honest, if money was no object I would have the l lens but if you don't want to spend that much the non l is great vfm, especially second hand.
 
menthel said:
Don't understand the bokeh comments though, most lenses will have non round bokeh at smaller apertures and often you find yourself working at very small apertures when taking macro pictures.
Click to expand...

The L lens has more aperture blades so it keeps a better circle. I now use the sigma 150mm which is a perfect circle at all apertures, it has 9 blades- same as the L, the extra blade makes a big difference. Some older manual focus lenses I have contain 11, or even 20 blades!


other than that the non L is 90% of the quality for 50% of the price
 
Last edited:
Canon Bob said:
What did you find disappointing and gobsmacking about the two lenses, Daniel?
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

Well, when I picked up the L series it felt like I wanted it to... Build quality seemed wonderful. I have looked at many of the portrait photos on here and admired the sharpness of the images, which I've never been able to get with previous lenses I've had and immediately I took a photo of my Girlfriend in the shop, the brightness, contrast, sharpness and colour of the image was like I have seen on the pictures in the critique sections. The AF picked up lightning fast and my usual test of photoing the end of my finger to test the auto focus was almost like the camera had anticipated what I was about to do.

The standard lens, also felt good in my hands. I set the same settings to take a photo of Kathryn again and noted that the AF was quite a bit slower, but still more than acceptable. The picture seemed less vibrant, less colourful and was considerably softer when I zoomed in. Which left me question whether it was worth buying even if I couldn't afford the L series.

I'm a pool player Bob, and I think the dull conditions of a pool hall mean I need and IS so that I don't rely too heavily on ISO or a steady hand (which I haven't got!)

I think that with a CP filter and a nice outdoor light environment then you would be hard pressed to justify the cost, but my experience lead me to the conclusions I got. Probably very prematurely, but the choice was either non-L and golf clubs (Callaway Diablo edge) or Golf clubs now, 3 months later L series.

I ballsed up though and bouth a Sigma 150-500mm on Monday. Which I love.

Hope you can see where I'm coming from?

Dan
 
I did forget to mention, the end of finger Macro test with Non-L left the lens searching back and forth.

Ta,

Dan
 
If you found the non l soft then there must have been something wrong with it. It is recognised to be a very, very sharp lens.
 
lancsoatcake said:
Hi Bob,
......snipped......
Hope you can see where I'm coming from?
Dan
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed response Dan.

The reason that I asked the question was that it's been rare for people to be "disappointed" with the USM version. It's been around for a fair while and stood the test of time in many respects. I've got the L, had the USM and still have the original extending barrel version and thought they all performed extremely well within their targetted usage.
Whilst it's true that the L is capable of slightly better resolution, any lens with an MTF as high as the USM is never going to be soft.
My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the L equals or wins the fight in all aspects except value for money....but 10% better is usually 50% dearer in this game.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
but 10% better is usually 50% dearer in this game.

Bob
Click to expand...
Yep, like a lot of things Bob the law of diminishing returns applies. If its worth it or not is entirely an individual thing.
I recently sold my mint Canon 100 non IS for around £300 and bought the LIS version for around £700 - for me the extra £400 was most certainly worth it but for a lot of people it may not be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top