# 100mm F2.8 macro vs 100mm F.28L IS macro



## hopopotamus (Aug 16, 2012)

I would like to use one of these 2 lenses for wedding photography mainly. After reading ton of reviews it looks like both options are excellent and give good results, however I don't have time to set up tripod just to shoot the rings for example. I never used micro lens so I'm hoping to get some advice. Basically it comes down to the price. Do you think IS worth double the price, also if you think I should be looking in to some other lenses please let me know.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## hyles (Aug 16, 2012)

get the 100 f2 USM, really sharp, really nice bokeh, fast AF and 1 stop faster then the macro lenses. For portrati it is much better.
Diego
PS I think it is even cheaper


----------



## keithfullermusic (Aug 16, 2012)

i have the regular and i love it. IS is not worth double the price in my opinion - not even close.

if you don't have a nice camera, then the IS will help out a lot more, but with my 5Diii I can shoot at high enough ISOs to avoid camera shake. If there is shake, its because the subject is moving - and no IS is going to help that.

In terms of quality, the regular is unbelievably sharp - even wide open. Maybe the L is better, but at that point I really don't think it will be noticeable unless you start comparing them side by side and start pixel peeping.

I know tons of people will say "oh my god. you need IS." or something like "OMG, the weather sealing is a must." but, IS isn't very useful at this length, and don't use your camera underwater. if your lens does break because of water you can buy a second one and still be at the same price for one of the L's.

here is a cropped shot with the 1002.8 (@f/4.5) from a wedding i did last weekend. it was handheld.


----------



## Wilmark (Aug 16, 2012)

It may not be worth the extra. I have the IS and its great. Bryans site say that it does everything better than the non IS (I have never used the non IS). I use it with a tube to get in even closer. In all its about a stop worth of shake and not the amount advertised. But you always pay a premium to get the best, as always with canon.


----------



## robbinzo (Aug 16, 2012)

I own the L 100mm macro. It is sharp at all apertures. It focuses very quickly on my 550D, despite the aging auto-focus system. I believe it has a greater no. of aperture blades, so the bokeh is slightly better than the non-L. I get unbelievably good bokeh even on a crop sensor.
The L series also frames the subject slightly tighter than the non-L. I've compared it to my 28-135mm zoom lens and it also frames the subject tighter than at 135mm!
You are not just paying extra for the IS. The L is top quality in all areas.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 16, 2012)

Depends on how close you want to get. TDP states thall all macros need more light (up to 2 stops) as the magnification ratio increases to 1. I never measured it myself, but it definitely happens. Try your 70-200 with IS off for a typical ring shot (with typical ambient light levels) and determine what your shutter speed is. If you're ok shooting at 1/4 to 1/2 of that speed handheld, then go for the non-IS.


----------



## sawsedge (Aug 16, 2012)

I have the non-IS model and I love it, but I use a tripod for most closeups. Bokeh is excellent on the non-IS model. IQ-wise you can't make a bad choice.

If I didn't have time for a tripod, I'd certainly opt for the IS model. If you are getting paid and the clients want ring pics, I think it'll pay for itself.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Aug 16, 2012)

If have all the money in the world to blow for lenses, then I agree with what some have said about getting the IS. but, with a somewhat steady hand you should easily be able to get sharp shots at 1/200. If you're using a flash, then no problem whatsoever. My main point about the IS and macro shots is that usually what is moving is your subject, not so much your hand. If you're only shooting rings, then obviously subject movement isn't a problem, but bump up your ISO a little, that's one of the reasons why you probably bought that 5D.


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Aug 16, 2012)

robbinzo said:


> I own the L 100mm macro. It is sharp at all apertures. It focuses very quickly on my 550D, despite the aging auto-focus system. I believe it has a greater no. of aperture blades, so the bokeh is slightly better than the non-L. I get unbelievably good bokeh even on a crop sensor.
> The L series also frames the subject slightly tighter than the non-L. I've compared it to my 28-135mm zoom lens and it also frames the subject tighter than at 135mm!
> You are not just paying extra for the IS. The L is top quality in all areas.



But is that RED ring worth double the price? I doubt it. If you need some weather protection maybe, but this lens isn't going to make you take pictures any better than the regular 100mm macro, just like every L lens out there, you pay for that premium and the RED ring, but it won't make you any better than what you are.


----------



## iaind (Aug 16, 2012)

Hand held the 100L wins hands down. The 50% premium I paid for H-IS, weather sealing and newer larger optics over an 9 yo design was worth it.


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Aug 16, 2012)

iaind said:


> Hand held the 100L wins hands down. The 50% premium I paid for H-IS, weather sealing and newer larger optics over an 9 yo design was worth it.



But you didn't answer the one million dollar question. Is it going to make you take any better pictures over the 100mm macro?


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 16, 2012)

I've had both at one time or another. Neither now- traded for 135 f/2 as I don't shoot macro.

With that said, both images were sharp and beautiful. What I do like about IS, when handholding, is the steady VIEW FINDER. Makes framing something small and really close up so much easier. I never needed IS cause I always used flash or fast shutter speeds, but that "sticky" frame is really sweet.

For what it is worth, I always got sharper images from the non-L / non-IS version. But sharpness is crazy overrated. That word is thrown around too much IMO.

If I was running around nature chasing bugs I'd get the L for IS and the weather thing. If I was in studio/ more controlled environments, I'd save the money, buy the non-L and spend the rest on a flash.


----------



## CharlieB (Aug 16, 2012)

I have used both. The L is the better of the two optically, but by only scant margins, as the non-L is deadly sharp as it is.

Is it worth all the extra money... hmm.

You get a hood with the L, and I think the hood is about a $40 item. You get a case with the L, again some cost with that.

The rest is the IS, and better build quality. The non-L is not built badly at all. The old non-USM one... er... not as nice, it grows with focus etc. But the USM non-L is a fine lens.

I would not justify the expense on the optical quality alone. If you can justify the IS... then by all means, its worth it. 

The only thing similar I have is the 24-105 (similar focal length at 105), and find with some effort and deliberate concentration, I get sharp results fairly easily at 1/40-1/60 range of speeds. Keep in mind macro shots - very close - you're shooting darker due to magnification, and you also will show any motion blur more easily.

If somebody said - you gotta do the rings, but cant use a tripod, I'd use a monopod - which would be up to the task in almost all cases.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2012)

L has a tiny bit better micro-contrast and pop

maybe the IS could help for what you are doing?

the L is a little faster at the same aperture so it lets in a bit more light and has a bit less dof at f/2.8 than the non-L which also might be a bit better for you at times

then again double the price is a lot
and maybe other lenses are even more fitting than either, dunno


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2012)

One additional thing to keep in mind is that with the new 5D3/1DX AF systems the 100 USM is a much lower class AF than the 100L so it doesn't have usage of as many cross type points, all the outer cross points turn into single direction with the non-L.


----------



## pwp (Aug 19, 2012)

For wedding work I'd be choosing the one with the quickest AF. 
IQ on both lenses is fantastic, so no issue there. 

OTOH why not consider the legendary 135 f/2 as an alternative?

-PW


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> In terms of quality, the regular is unbelievably sharp - even wide open. Maybe the L is better, but at that point I really don't think it will be noticeable unless you start comparing them side by side and start pixel peeping.



The difference shows when you use a crop camera or a tc (working distance) on the 100L vs the non-L, the L version is clearly sharper wide open and diffraction sets in later. Other than that, the L has nicer, rounder lights in bokeh due to different blade design, but that's hardly an issue on its own. As a macro lens for sane apertures like f5-f10 the non-L is nearly the same.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



keithfullermusic said:


> I know tons of people will say "oh my god. you need IS." or something like "OMG, the weather sealing is a must." but, IS isn't very useful at this length, and don't use your camera underwater. if your lens does break because of water you can buy a second one and still be at the same price for one of the L's.



+1 for unnecessary IS, but sealing isn't just a protection against water, but against sand/dust, too. That's the reason I upgraded after my non-L broke down due to sand for the second time, it's hard to keep the lens out of harm's way when being outdoors and near the ground.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 29, 2012)

You have to understand, anyone who bought the L version will have convinced themselves it was better. Human nature.

I have Owned and sold both 100 f/2.8's. They are similar in sharpness. The L is pricier and looks nicer and theoretically IS should help... but I never got much blurry pics with the non-L so I did not miss IS. 

However if I was hunting for moving insects then the IS would help a little as I panned. Otherwise the non-IS was very sharp too, and add to that, had a wonderful Bokeh.

For wedding, the non-IS is just as good. It depends how much cash you have. the non-IS could probably take 95% shots that the L can, but is 50% the price.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 29, 2012)

9 (rounded) blades vs 8: 100L IS bokeh should be (is) nicer.

Bokeh is generally considered important for portraits.

The two Canon 100mm Macro lenses aren't portrait lenses: for a wedding, I'd probably follow the advice of a 100mm F/2 or 135mm F/2 L.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2012)

JohanCruyff said:


> The two Canon 100mm Macro lenses aren't portrait lenses: for a wedding, I'd probably follow the advice of a 100mm F/2 or 135mm F/2 L.



No lens has "portrait" written on it, but the 100L certainly is usable for this application, and for a wedding is more versatile than the 100/2 because you can close-up shots without changing lenses. The "real" flexible portrait lens for weddings is the 70-200/2.8 if you are willing to carry that around.



JohanCruyff said:


> 9 (rounded) blades vs 8: 100L IS bokeh should be (is) nicer.



Having shot with both lenses I can say that the *rounded* blades make the difference, at least when there are highlights in the bokeh - it's not so much of a difference if it's just the standard background blur.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 29, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> No lens has "portrait" written on it, but the 100L certainly is usable for this application, and for a wedding is more versatile than the 100/2 because you can close-up shots without changing lenses. The "real" flexible portrait lens for weddings is the 70-200/2.8 if you are willing to carry that around.


True, but, if you're going with a prime, one of the 100mm macro's is a nice combo to have so you don't have to keep changing lenses to get detail shots.


----------



## paulc (Aug 29, 2012)

If all you're looking for a lens just to get a macro shot the rings, get a Panasonic LX5. It's a heck of a lot cheaper and easier than a macro lens plus the small sensor size is actually a benefit here.


----------



## EatingPie (Sep 1, 2012)

K-amps said:
 

> You have to understand, anyone who bought the L version will have convinced themselves it was better. Human nature.


Win for being totally dismissive of those with a different opinion! 

"Your opinion doesn't count because you own the L lens and you just need to justify the price!"

For me, IS is hugely beneficial because I have a fairly shaky hand. I'm considering selling my 100 USM for the 100 L purely for IS. But one thing is sure, my current lens is still awesome even if I don't upgrade.

-Pie


----------



## colvinatch (Sep 1, 2012)

I own the 100mm 2.8 non IS and it is a great lens. I would look for it used on ebay and put the savings into a strobe. A good strobe coupled with f~2.8 will allow a fast enough shutter speed to make a tripod un-necessary, as well as giving you a lot more versatility in your other shots at a wedding. As a footnote, the 100mm makes a fantastic portrait lens.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 2, 2012)

Lord. : The IS is better, it has IS for example. It is more expensive.

So buy the one that you can afford.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 2, 2012)

K-amps said:


> You have to understand, anyone who bought the L version will have convinced themselves it was better. Human nature.
> 
> I have Owned and sold both 100 f/2.8's. They are similar in sharpness. The L is pricier and looks nicer and theoretically IS should help... but I never got much blurry pics with the non-L so I did not miss IS.
> 
> ...



Just for the record I owned both and the L was just a little better with micro-contrast with my copies and the IS can be useful for say flowers without tripods or to help you just manage to get natural light bug pics so long as the bugs are still (you will likely still need to fire off in burst mode and then pick the sharp ones out, but a few sharp ones is better than all but none). (interesting was the lens rental test though which did verify that most L are sharper than most non-L, however it also found that the best non-L were actually a little bit crisper than the worst L copies)

But yeah twice the price is a lot, the sharpness difference is less than say the 70-300 vs 70-300L (although bigger than the 1.4x TC II vs III in the center of the frame, now that one you need 200% view and microscope and careful staring even at that to see the III is sharper, in that cases the difference is more at the edges and in CA) so it may not make sense for a good number of people.

In the end I did like the L better and decided to keep it and sell the non-L, although certainly the non-L is pretty good, but the IS does help at times for me for sure and heck why not get the touch better pop to details and a bit more BG blur when shooting both at f/2.8.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 2, 2012)

pwp said:


> For wedding work I'd be choosing the one with the quickest AF.
> IQ on both lenses is fantastic, so no issue there.
> 
> OTOH why not consider the legendary 135 f/2 as an alternative?
> ...



If you don't need the macro... I think the 135 just sounds crazy amazing. If I can get one cheap... I'd keep both my 100mm f/2.8L Macro and the 135... I just have to find the cash or a great price.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 5, 2012)

EatingPie said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > You have to understand, anyone who bought the L version will have convinced themselves it was better. Human nature.
> ...



Thats an assumption and an unfair one. I was referring to myself. When I upgraded to the L, I had convinced myself it was better and I really needed the IS. Now both are gone and I shoot with the 180mm. 

There will be situations where the IS is needed, however an objective evaluation is needed, perhaps not an emotive one. As I look back on some of the shots I have taken with both, I tend to prefer the rendering of the non-L. I sometimes wonder why... on the other hand you will find people who prefer the L. This just tells you how close the 2 models are. In many cases it boils down to price.


----------



## kirillica (Sep 5, 2012)

As it was said: do for the one you can afford. I tried both and my decision is IS version: it's a bit sharper, has better micro-contrast, AF seems to be faster, weather sealing is a good stuff for shooting outside and IS helping a lot too, if you don't want to use flash and boost ISO. 

and L-version is looking better ;D


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 11, 2012)

How about going closer than 1:1? Do either work well with extension tubes?


----------

