Canon 100mm macro lens, is the I/S worth the extra???

M

Martylaa

Suspended / Banned
Messages
305
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Is it worth nearly double the price for the IS mode on the Canon 100 mm macro lenses???
If i'm taking macro shots surely a tripod will be good enough???
 
I think you'll find the one with IS is also an L spec lens.

Personaly I'd love one. Remember that you can't always have a tripod hanging around :D
 
Depends. It would be useful if you take a lot of handheld natural light shots. It would also be useful for steadying the viewfinder for fine focussing.

But to freeze tiny motion you need flash, and ideally I always use a tripod because accurate focus/framing is difficult handheld at 1:1.
 
ChrisH said:
I think you'll find the one with IS is also an L spec lens.

Personaly I'd love one. Remember that you can't always have a tripod hanging around :D
Click to expand...

The non IS version is also an L lens. *edit* talking out my arse, it isnt..:bonk:

The IS is very very good, far better than the Nikon version. Whilst its not much good at 1:1 its pretty good at every other level. Of course a tripod is better for macro, but its not always possible, and having the IS lets you try things that may have been harder to do with a tripod. Its also very usefull when using the lens as a long portrait lens. Ive said it before, and I'll say it now.
The canon 100mm f/2.8L IS is the best lens I have ever used, that includes some of Canon's other greats, and some of Nikon's finest.
 
Last edited:
TCR4x4 said:
The non IS version is also an L lens.
Click to expand...

I have the non IS version and it is not a L lens. I have asked the same question as the op. My reason for buying the non IS was that I used a tripod so I saw no advantage in having IS.
 
it might not have that red ring, but optically, it's just as good.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=107

as you can see from the crops, both lenses are very sharp. i had the non-is version for about a year. it's a great lens, it has good colour/contrast, focuses quickly and accurately and feels well balanced on the camera.

basically, optical quality should not be seen as differentiator - it really does come down to whether you need IS or not.

i used my lens mainly for portraits, and whilst it is a great lens for that - indeed, much better than many - i was trading to get a 70-200 zoom (in the end) and already had the 135 f2, so i didn't need a 100mm 2.8 prime for portraits. i wished i had the cash to keep it, i might buy it again someday.

the original 100mm it's a great lens at bargain price. a 'hidden' L if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
how do those charts work, new to this photpgraphy and not sure what i'm looking at?
also whats the L stand for in the canon lenses then?
 
The origional isn't an L lens and there is more to the L series than just the IQ

The fit and finish is better, the waterproofing is better and a number of other minor things.

All are irelavent really. The part that matters in this case is the IS system.

I couldn't manage without IS on any my lenses just because I have a tremble.

Using flash now thats summat I never tried when I had a go at Macro, maybe I should have. Somehow I think places like Chester Zoo butterly house would have been awkward with a tripod, I do know someone who tried and suffered.
 
Martylaa said:
how do those charts work, new to this photpgraphy and not sure what i'm looking at?
also whats the L stand for in the canon lenses then?
Click to expand...

the focus charts on the digital picture allow you to compare centre and corner sharpness between lenses. because you're looking at two very good lenses, there isn't much to see.

take a look at this instead:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=458&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=5&API=0

the canon 28-200 (at 200mm) compared against the 200 f/2 both at their widest aperture settings. the 200 f2 is one of canon's sharpest lenses - see the difference?

sharpness isn't everything, colour and contrast are equally important (contrast more so, imo), as well as bokeh, focus accuracy etc, but it's certainly one way to easily and objectively measure (one) optical quality of a lens... in part at least.
 
Last edited:
would you buy a second hand one, theres not much difference in price for new and used???
300 quid for used u/s or 400 quid for new u/s version
 
Martylaa said:
would you buy a second hand one, theres not much difference in price for new and used???
300 quid for used u/s or 400 quid for new u/s version[/QUOTE

Mine was bought used on here, no dust scratches or marks it was well cared for, paid £315 for it and have no regrets. Be warned: macro photography is quite adictive and it is possible to spend a huge amount of money very quickly!
Click to expand...
 
If you are going to be shooting insects like butterflies I would go for the IS version
much easier without a tripod and I find I can use a lower ISO because you can use lower shutterspeeds:)
pete
 
Remember the IS is different on this lens.

It not only has the standard IS, but also deals with the extra dimension of lens tilt..

I have this lens and it is a cracker...
 
I am going to say I owned the 100mm f2.8 which was a cracker of a lens in its own right, sold it and bought myself the 100mm f2.8 L IS, i have to say I have not looked back, the finish, the weather seal and handling are all plus points, but the IS is invaluable, can do hand held shots without whipping out the tripod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top