# !00mm macro L or non L



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 1, 2012)

Is the L worth 2 x price of non L bearing in mind both have max aperture of f/2.8?


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 1, 2012)

The non L is amazing. I don't see how any lens can be twice as good. I'm not sure if that added price is for weather sealing and IS, because the optics on the non L are nearly perfect.


----------



## well_dunno (Apr 1, 2012)

I have non-L and am happy with it. 

L is slightly sharper and then it has the hybrid IS and better build quality etc. Though the hybrid IS is not very effective for macro says dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16

Some folks here in the forum have updated from non-L to L, I recall reading. They might have a better perspective...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2012)

If you're going to handhold at 1:2 or less, e.g. taking pictures of flowers, wedding rings, etc., the 100L with the hybrid-IS would be a better choice. If you'll be shooting mostly from a tripod, the non-L will do fine.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 2, 2012)

I had two or three non L versions and sold them all. I like to hand hold them, and could not get consistently sharp images hand held. For many images, it took so long to focus that using AI Servo, I often clicked the shutter before the lens had finally focused, or at least, that what I suspected.

I'm much happier with the "L" as a walk around lens, it focuses quickly, and the Hybrid IS lets me take handheld images that are reasonably sharp. 

As long as you are patient and careful, the 100mm USM is plenty sharp, its just not the best choice for someone who is impatient.

Here are some I took with the 100mmL just walking around.










Here is one with the 100mm USM


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 2, 2012)

Get the L!!! Its way better. Im super glad I upgraded. Much sharper, and the IS is outstanding. I never used the V1 for portraits, and I use the V2, IS L for portraits all the time! In fact, is one of my favorite lenses for wedding photography.


----------



## iaind (Apr 2, 2012)

If you are mainly going to hand hold the L is the obvious choice


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 2, 2012)

The L is awesome.

In the immortal (modified) words of Gangsters everywhere: "Cry Now, Smile Later."


----------



## HeavenHell (Apr 2, 2012)

I have the 100m non L and the Tamron 90mm macro and I enjoy both lenses.
If you're going to do a lot of non-tripod work, I agree with the other that the added expense of the L with IS is probably worth it.


----------



## rwmson (Apr 3, 2012)

Awesome shots there HH! I liked the bee the most.


----------



## DBCdp (Apr 3, 2012)

I did love my 100 v1 for it's sharpness, did not love it when I tried to use it for portraits. The new 100mm L IS is the best of both worlds. Takes incredible portrait shots while allowing a freedom for macro's never before attainable! Like all the best lenses, you still have to do your part for best performance. I've gotten used to using a monopod, helps a lot and is much faster to use than a tripod. But still can't replace the steadiness of a tripod of course, so there are still times that it's worth setting up the tripod and turning off the IS.

The shot here is with the 100L, on a Gitzo 5441 using the 1Ds MkII with a 580EXII on a RRS flash bracket optimized with AI Servo. Had to cut down a Black Walnut tree lost to the drought last year and found the bark very interestingly laden with lichen and fungii, had to grab some shots....of course!


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 3, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Is the L worth 2 x price of non L bearing in mind both have max aperture of f/2.8?



Oh no, this discussion all over again  ... see the search ... my 2 cents: the sharpness of the non-L version is almost as excellent as the L and at the same time well below other primes at open aperture (see the test charts on the review sites), and IS does not or helps very little for real macro distances and because you'll be using a tripod a lot anyway.

The advantages of the L are: a) IS so this lens more usable for portraits and as a walkaround, too, b) dust sealing (this is an issue if you are working near the ground outdoors), c) red ring gives you a considerable ego boost and divides the crowd in front of you. 

You'll have to decide for yourself if that's worth it, esp. because you can get used non-L versions very cheap while the L sells almost at its original price.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 3, 2012)

I tried both and in the end took the L. It was sharper than the non L although the non L was still very crisp. The deciding factor in the end was the dust and weather protection as I sometimes use this focal length on landscapes and portraits. 

I often use a 120 macro with my 645d which gives effective focal length of around 90mm on 35mm and love the sharpness


----------



## gary (Apr 3, 2012)

I upgraded and the difference is worth the price. Its all been said before but it is a lens that I tend to leave on the camera, great hand held all around lens, its more than just a macro.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 3, 2012)

gary said:


> I upgraded and the difference is worth the price. Its all been said before but it is a lens that I tend to leave on the camera, great hand held all around lens, its more than just a macro.



You're on full frame, right? In this case I'd agree, but on aps-c the 100mm imho is too long as a "always on" lens and thus I'm only using it for macro shots. For everything else I'd rather use my 70-300L because the 70->100mm difference is very notable.

*standard disclaimer: If money is of no concern, of course I'd advise everyone to get the L version, there are no drawbacks.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 3, 2012)

The IS is incredibly helpful in framing handheld too! Even though a fast shutter speed/ flash can negate the need for IS, it wont help you when you are trying to frame close-up. To me, that has been the biggest difference between the 2.

I had the L, then sold it & got the non-L as I don't use the focal length or shoot macro too often to justify "needing" it. The non-L is wonderful too.

+ The IS is also really good for handheld video work.


----------



## nicku (Apr 3, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Is the L worth 2 x price of non L bearing in mind both have max aperture of f/2.8?



from the IQ point of view the the two lenses have the same quality. the L series have IS, faster autofocus and improved build quality.

if you are intrested only in IQ the answer is NO. overal the L version is better and the IS is very useful in many situations.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 3, 2012)

Have just had a short play with it in the garden as the sun went down. 

Canon 5D mk III EF 100mm L Macro f/6.3 1/60 ISO 2500




flowers-in-garden by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## skitron (Apr 3, 2012)

The way I looked at it when I bought my 100 L is I first tried a friend's non-L and liked it, but no IS and the AF not as good on non-macro. So it was a lens that was very good at one thing (macro) and useable for another (non-macro). The L with IS (and it definitely does help a bunch with handheld macro) and better AF at distance turns out to be a lens that is very, very good at two very different things. So yes, worth the price for me.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 3, 2012)

I like Macro lenses as I like the sharpness and they tend to be pretty distortion free. I have used my Pentax 645 120 Macro lens to do panoramics: lots of detail, very sharp - the downside is that the final image is too large to save as a .tiff file or a .psd. One is about 7GB in size. Mind you that's thanks in no small part to the 645D's 40 megapixels. The RAW images are 3 - 4 times larger than the mk III's


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 4, 2012)

Another playing around with the lens indoors with a 20 pence piece

This is at a 1:1.5 ratio

f/10 1/60 ISO 500




20pence by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 4, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Another playing around with the lens indoors with a 20 pence piece



You didn't mention which lens it is - L or non-L - and rightly so: For indoor macro shots with a tripod it doesn't matter at all. So for these kinds of shots, it's more economic to get the non-L and a couple of flashes for the same price of the L version.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > Another playing around with the lens indoors with a 20 pence piece
> ...



All without tripod with the L version.


----------



## recon photography (Apr 4, 2012)

i think its one of those things where you should choose the cheaper one because its fine but once you use the more expensive you buy it anyway the 100mm non is a fantastic lens but the 100mm l is perfect at what it does easily one of cannons sharpest lenses even at 2.8 plus the 9 rounded aperture blades ensures smooth bokeh balls at all apertures. Having said that if its actually twice as much where you live probably go for the non L since you obviously don't NEED the features of the L otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question


----------



## aldvan (Apr 4, 2012)

I have the L versio but I can't compare it with the non-L version.
As many stated before me, the L is a very good lens, that I use very often as standard lens, since I like go around catching details of the world around me (a beautiful dish or drink, a flower, the texture of a stone wall etc.), obviously without a tripod.
By the way, prices never follow the same curve of performances, in photography as in every technology. To get ten percent more power in a car you will spend well more then ten percent...


----------



## infared (Apr 4, 2012)

I own the L with IS. Never owned previous versions. I have to say, I think that the lens is one of the (if not THE) sharpest lenses that I own. I was a little put off by the thought of spending $1000 on a lens with a plastic barrel....but in retrospect the lens performs so well and it is nice and light in the bag and definitely has a quality feel to it! (did I just say that? LOL~). 
Now...since the lens is soooooo sharp and has incredible IS ...I find my self using it for MUCH more than macro photography. ...but lets face it....most macro photography is so demanding with high DOF needed that you really do need a tripod, flash etc...but I have been able to push the limit with this lens of what I can shoot close up, on-the-fly because of the IS. 
I REALLY like this lens. No regrets in my purchase.


----------



## Eimajm (Apr 4, 2012)

I have the non-L version and have IS - my tripod. Do you need IS? - well how much do you want to ditch the tripod - if you don't like carrying a tripod around or it affects your creativity then get the L lens. Simple as that.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 4, 2012)

Eimajm said:


> I have the non-L version and have IS - my tripod. Do you need IS? - well how much do you want to ditch the tripod - if you don't like carrying a tripod around or it affects your creativity then get the L lens. Simple as that.



And some additional piece of information who hasn't got either lens yet:

* IS doesn't help if shooting at non-optimal light and iso 100 (i.e. lowest noise, highest iq and ability to crop to 100%) because shutter speed still is too low except when shooting with open aperture - but this is far in between for me because the dof is so thin at macro distances.

* IS doesn't freeze the world around you - when shooting butterflies, I'm usually at or above 1/1000s - at these speeds, IS only helps with framing, not with the shot itsself (I know this from my 70-300L).


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 4, 2012)

I have the L. Having the IS is really nice for handheld macro shots. Plus, you can use it as a good portrait lens too.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 4, 2012)

I have the L and no experience on the non L . I have found the L to be a magnificent lens. Excellent for Macro and for Portraits it has a lovely bokeh. It's hard to tell whether IS is useful or not. At 2.8 the depth of field is so shallow it's hard to tell whether the IS helps or not. I love it as a lens as colours are great on it and the bokeh is very smooth. It's as sharp as tack.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/6665297581/#in/set-72157625645417935


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Apr 4, 2012)

Does anyone have any portrait comparisons for these two lenses. I am a wedding photographer and looking for more glass (as always). The 100mm L is what I think I want but If I can get by with the 100mm (non L) I would like to spend the cash elsewhere...


----------



## recon photography (Apr 5, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> Does anyone have any portrait comparisons for these two lenses. I am a wedding photographer and looking for more glass (as always). The 100mm L is what I think I want but If I can get by with the 100mm (non L) I would like to spend the cash elsewhere...



With your kit the 100mmL would be the number 1 lenses i would recommend followed by a fast 50, 1.8 would do fine. the 100mmL make a great portrait lens.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 5, 2012)

I actually originally had the L version, but traded it for a lens I use more (the 70-200 f/4 IS). Then got the non-L version later on.

This version is also very good for portraits and focuses fast (as long as you aren't going from macro to far).




Violet by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

And here is an "action" shot showing how fast the focus tracking is on my 7D. Shot in AI Servo.




Vi &lt;3's Swings! by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

And an upclose shot.




Stick + Bench = Fun by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

This lens is really fun to use as a telephoto/ portrait lens that basically has no minimum focus distance for normal photography. Then Macro is a plus.


----------



## NAshby (Apr 6, 2012)

The L is well worth the extra cash, the hybrid IS makes a huge difference if you are using it hand held (which I am 95% of the time for weddings)

~Nathan Ashby
Photography Apprentice Coordinator
http://www.brovadoweddings.com/blog/photography-apprentice/


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 6, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> The non L is amazing. I don't see how any lens can be twice as good. I'm not sure if that added price is for weather sealing and IS, because the optics on the non L are nearly perfect.



100% agree!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 6, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> Does anyone have any portrait comparisons for these two lenses. I am a wedding photographer and looking for more glass (as always). The 100mm L is what I think I want but If I can get by with the 100mm (non L) I would like to spend the cash elsewhere...


 
If you are doing close up images of wedding rings or other small objects, the hybrid IS is wonderful. Otherwise, you likely have other lenses that will do as good or better for portraits, so portrait use is a side benefit. I never use mine for portraits, my 135mm l is so much better.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 6, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I never use mine for portraits, my 135mm l is so much better.



I agree that a macro is not a dedicated portrait lens (thus I got the non-L version) - but out of interest: what's so much better about the 135L? sharpness wide open? bokeh?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 6, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I never use mine for portraits, my 135mm l is so much better.
> ...


 
All of the above plus F/2 aperture. 

Lack of IS may bother some, but for portraits, IS is not a big issue to me.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 7, 2012)

I've used both. If there is a difference optically, it's completely insignificant in practice. They are both extremely good. I've found that the IS doesn't help as much for macro as I had hoped, but it is helpful if you use the lens for non-macro distances (for e.g. candid portraits). For macro, a flash is much more useful. You could use the price difference to get e.g. a Sigma EM-140 DG Macro Flash.

Comparing the EF 100/2.8L to the EF 135/2.0L for portraits, I would again say that the difference in sharpness (and bokeh) is insignificant (they are both excellent), the most important difference is instead the larger aperture of the 135L and the IS of the 100L.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2012)

epsiloneri said:


> You could use the price difference to get e.g. a Sigma EM-140 DG Macro Flash.



I also thought about getting a macro flash - but looking at the price tag for me it's more useful to get two remote speedlites that I can use for non-macro work, too. The Canon IR system works just fine at these distance. As long as my lens doesn't cast a shadow, even the built-in flash of my 60d works as an additional fill flash. Last not least, I personally found that stopped down directional light looks better than the full-frontal blow of a macro flash - but ymmv of course.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 7, 2012)

The L is TOTALLY worth the 2x price jump. The IS alone is incredible. 4 stops! I use this lens now for wedding photography ALL the time. In fact. If my all time favorite wedding portrait lens now! Highly recommend the L.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 8, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> I use this lens now for wedding photography ALL the time. In fact. If my all time favorite wedding portrait lens now!


What is it about the 100/2.8L IS that makes you prefer it (on weddings) to the 70-200/2.8L IS II? Is it the less intimidating size or macro capability? IQ seems very comparable at 100mm, with the macro having a tad nicer bokeh. The 70-200, on the other hand, is much more versatile for portraits, so I would have thought you'd prefer that.


----------

