Canon 100mm macro lens L vs non-L

Which one would you go for?

  • I'd go for Canon 100mm 2.8 L

    Votes: 31 81.6%

  • I'd go for Canon 100mm 2.8 non-L

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Total voters
    38
=ReBeL=

=ReBeL=

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,095
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
No
Just a small poll to ask whether if you were after Canon 100mm macro lens like I am, would you be prepared to pay more for the L version or the the non-L would be good enough for you. I'm struggling with this problem myself. I would like the L, but not sure whether I can justify the extra cost, especially when the performance of both is so close.

L version has IS, is weather sealed, has 9 blade circular aperture (non-L has 8 blades), slightly better IQ and is almost double the price (roughly £400 for non-L vs £700 for the L. Though when I'll be buying one I'd most likely go for the grey, so £330 vs £550.

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Macro/EF_100mm_f2.8L_Macro_IS_USM/

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Macro/EF_100mm_f2.8_Macro_USM/

I'm struggling. Please tell me what would you do.
 
I bought the L version and I find the IS really useful because all of my macro is handheld
 
I had the non-L but (like a lot of people) recently sold it to buy the L version.

It really depends if you are into macro in a big way .. if so then the small IQ increase is worth it and the IS is always handy.

If you are like me you will first get the cheaper version and then upgrade later wishing you had gone for the decent one to begin with. (bit like when I got married really) :lol:
 
Consider value when selling it on too.

If going grey, i think you'd get the benefit and value from the L version more.
 
Just to add. The lens would be used for variety of things. Starting from product photography (details) to some close-up still life composition images. I'm not into bugs, but I don't deny that I'll try that side of macro as well.

The images will be used online to sell products (so not big versions), but also some of them will be printed in sizes between a small post cards to a large print/canvass.

All comments so far duly noted. Thank you.

PS it looks like to be able to see the poll results, I need to vote myself first :thinking:
 
Don't forget the 100mm is also a great prime in its own right. IS is always nice to have.

I went through the same decision making process and ended up with the L-IS.
 
=ReBeL= said:
Just to add. The lens would be used for variety of things. Starting from product photography (details) to some close-up still life composition images. I'm not into bugs, but I don't deny that I'll try that side of macro as well.

The images will be used online to sell products (so not big versions), but also some of them will be printed in sizes between a small post cards to a large print/canvass.

All comments so far duly noted. Thank you.

PS it looks like to be able to see the poll results, I need to vote myself first :thinking:
Click to expand...

For your requirements the non-L will be fine. Sounds like most of your shots will be on a tripod and therefore the IS is not required. The non IS lens has superb image quality already and will be great for the things you describe. Use the saved money to buy some proper lighting etc for the porducts and still life work!
 
As Jim says ... sounds like the non L version will be fine for your requirements.
I upgraded to the L as I do a lot of macro photography hand held so the IS is handy but if you are doing well lit product shots and still life composition I can't really see the need for anything more expensive
 
Mike.P said:
As Jim says ... sounds like the non L version will be fine for your requirements.
I upgraded to the L as I do a lot of macro photography hand held so the IS is handy but if you are doing well lit product shots and still life composition I can't really see the need for anything more expensive
Click to expand...

Glad I am not the only person with red ring blinkers on! ;)
 
Just upgraded to L but haven't had time to try it yet. Bought it for IS more than any other reason.
 
Although most of my photos are hand held I can live without the IS. At the moment most product shots I do with 70-200 non-IS, but the 1.3m distance limit is really annoying me.

The lighting is usually consistent, as for most shots I use studio strobes.

What my main worry is, is that if I decide to make a large print/canvass the extra IQ/sharpness in small detail would be visible and appreciated. Also the circular aperture for nicer bokeh.
 
The L is sharper wide open, and IS helps. Improved Focus limiter is also very handy. The contrast also seems a bit better.

This is all to be expected from 2x more expensive L lens
 
Thank you for the examples Jim, lovely photos. And thank you to everybody who commented so far.

I must admit that I'm swaying slightly towards the L version though. I could sell my 85 1.8 to help me fund the difference in price.
 
My 85 1.8 is non-L, but I also do portraits from time to time. The 85 1.8 was bought with portraits in mind. I like the 85, but these days it is rarely on the camera.

100mm lens would also be used for portraits.
 
I have not had the non L so cannot comment on that but I do have the L and was in the same position as you last year. All I can say is the L version is a top lens, pin sharp on macro. I will never know if I could have saved the money on the non L but I do know the L is well worth it's price!
 
After much looking and reading I went for the sigma 150mm OS, better working distance and a lovely creamy bokeh and excellent edge to edge sharpness.
 
Last edited:
=ReBeL= said:
My 85 1.8 is non-L, but I also do portraits from time to time. The 85 1.8 was bought with portraits in mind. I like the 85, but these days it is rarely on the camera.

100mm lens would also be used for portraits.
Click to expand...

Just remember that a macro lens is generally very sharp and detailed (its what it is designed for!) and therefore can be unforgiving in portraits- many women (and men for that matter!) won't like having every last detail and flaw in their skin highlighted. Also the AF will be slower than the 85mm.

However, the focal length is very close indeed and unless you like portraits with half an eyeball in focus f2.8 is more than wide enough for most portraits.
 
Looking at the poll and comments, it is quite clear that for most people the L is worth the price difference.


Paul, while 150mm might be better for true macro work, in my small studio it might be a little too long. With still life or products the working distance is not as important as with bugs I believe (as long as it is smaller than 1.3m I'm limited to now with my 70-200).

Jim, for all close-up portraits I do skin retouching anyway (more or less thorough). 85 1.8 was bought for two reasons, much shorter working distance than my 70-200 (0.8m vs 1.3m) because walls sometimes limit me, and to use wide aperture for baby portraits. Though I rarely use it wide open (f1.8 to f4) for adult portraits (usually around f8 - f11) and with babies I don't usually go higher than f2.8.

I think I'll give myself some more time to think. I had the lens in my basket, was filling up my card details when suddenly decided to close the whole tab. If funds were not a problem I'd buy the L version in a blink, but because money are a problem (as usual with me), I think I need more time to think. I'll try to decide tomorrow after good night sleep :)
 
=ReBeL= said:
Looking at the poll and comments, it is quite clear that for most people the L is worth the price difference.


Paul, while 150mm might be better for true macro work, in my small studio it might be a little too long. With still life or products the working distance is not as important as with bugs I believe (as long as it is smaller than 1.3m I'm limited to now with my 70-200).

Jim, for all close-up portraits I do skin retouching anyway (more or less thorough). 85 1.8 was bought for two reasons, much shorter working distance than my 70-200 (0.8m vs 1.3m) because walls sometimes limit me, and to use wide aperture for baby portraits. Though I rarely use it wide open (f1.8 to f4) for adult portraits (usually around f8 - f11) and with babies I don't usually go higher than f2.8.

I think I'll give myself some more time to think. I had the lens in my basket, was filling up my card details when suddenly decided to close the whole tab. If funds were not a problem I'd buy the L version in a blink, but because money are a problem (as usual with me), I think I need more time to think. I'll try to decide tomorrow after good night sleep :)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rely on the poll tbh. Factor in your needs and money availability. Most people will have just voted for the red ring as a reflex rather that considering your requirements and situation! ;)

Oh and the skin retouching will take a lot longer on those photos shot with the macro! ;)
 
=ReBeL= said:
Looking at the poll and comments, it is quite clear that for most people the L is worth the price difference.


Paul, while 150mm might be better for true macro work, in my small studio it might be a little too long. With still life or products the working distance is not as important as with bugs I believe (as long as it is smaller than 1.3m I'm limited to now with my 70-200).

Jim, for all close-up portraits I do skin retouching anyway (more or less thorough). 85 1.8 was bought for two reasons, much shorter working distance than my 70-200 (0.8m vs 1.3m) because walls sometimes limit me, and to use wide aperture for baby portraits. Though I rarely use it wide open (f1.8 to f4) for adult portraits (usually around f8 - f11) and with babies I don't usually go higher than f2.8.

I think I'll give myself some more time to think. I had the lens in my basket, was filling up my card details when suddenly decided to close the whole tab. If funds were not a problem I'd buy the L version in a blink, but because money are a problem (as usual with me), I think I need more time to think. I'll try to decide tomorrow after good night sleep :)
Click to expand...

All you need is a set of auto tubes on your 85mm :-) gives around 1:1 with a full set of tubes or you can use with one or 2 tubes for less magnification

magnification like this with a single tube
5661909215_93bb1d1240_b.jpg
[/url] Female Orange Tip (Anthocharis cardamines)_IMG_1661 by HiddenNature, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
Thank you Paul and everybody else for the advice.

In the end I went for the L :) It arrived few days ago and I'm looking forward to testing it a bit more this weekend

Thanks :thumbs:
 
You will not be disappointed with the 'L', it is a cracking lens. I have owned both a non L and now the L and the extra money is certainly worth it for me. Not only is the IS very useful for hand holding but is has better IQ IMHO.
I also had a Sigma 150 (non OS) but that was just not up to the Canon's for me - the slightly extra working distance of the Sigma (about 1.5 inches when shooting at 1:1 if I remember correctly) was easily made up for by slightly cropping the Canon images.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Roy. So far I'm happy with the choice :cool:
 
I went for the Sigma 105mm OS lens as it's sharper :D
 
I've tested the lens a bit more today with studio strobes and I can't really complain about its sharpness. Everything is sharp and full of detail :thumbs:

Sadly, so far, I wasn't able to test it outdoors. It's raining here hard for the past couple of weeks everyday :thumbsdown:
 
Just a quick heads up. I was able to go out with my new 100mm L Macro lens today. First dry day here for ages. And I can't believe how sharp this lens is. Things look like a cutout sometimes when the background is blurred. Stunning lens, well worth the money and I'm very happy that I bought it :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top