MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Canon 100mm 2.8 macro vs. 100mm 2.8 L macro IS  (Read 16046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 09, 2010, 18:40 »
0
I am buying one of these, but I'm a little bit unsure if it's really worth the extra money to get the L version with IS ? Has anyone compared these two? I don't have to much money to spend, but I don't want to buy the cheapest one if the other one is much much better  :)


« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2010, 18:51 »
0
Both rate very highly for quality of image. Seems to be whether you would find IS useful or not. I have the non IS version and find it a fine lens. I would however like IS for the quick hand held images.

« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2010, 19:03 »
0
I'm gonna use it underwater as well... And it's a bit hard using a tripod down there (  ;) ), so maybe it will get easier getting a sharp picture with IS?! Havn't actually tried IS underwater yet ;)

« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2010, 19:06 »
0
Hey..

I own a 100mm f2.8 macro and love it! It's the lenses I use the most.

I just bought a 70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM and I'm loving it too.. The L really is better so depends on the quality you want, but I am never disappointed by my non-L 100mm F2.8 macro! =D

Good luck!

« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2010, 19:11 »
+1
I'm gonna use it underwater as well... And it's a bit hard using a tripod down there (  ;) ), so maybe it will get easier getting a sharp picture with IS?! Havn't actually tried IS underwater yet ;)

The IS is a big help getting a crisp image when it's you that is moving but not if it's the subject moving. But like you say tripods are hard to set up at depth so you will diminish some of the problems with IS. But if you are exposing mostly with fast flash at close ranges, IS may not be of much use. Your best friend will be the quick flash speeds and high sync speeds.

« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2010, 19:15 »
0
I have the IS version, but I can not say about the non-IS one.  There is some gain with IS in macros shot handheld, but I believe the swaying from being underwater can not be compensated at all with IS.  I opted for the IS version because it can be handy in situations where I won't be carrying a tripod, plus it's also a newer product.  In tests at SLRGear, I think, there was a slight higher CA in the IS version, though.

I took some sample shots, but haven't downloaded them yet.  I placed some at SP for demonstration:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/cameras-lenses/new-toys-have-arrived/

« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2010, 21:17 »
0
I have the non-IS version and it's an excellent lens. For the sort of macro and close up work and occasional use for portraits I do its about the only lens I have that I don't regret the absence of IS - it's almost always used by me either with studio lighting/macro flash or with available light on a tripod. I guess if you did bug chasing with it which is more hand held or available light portraiture it would be nice to have the IS. But the image quality on either should be excellent.

« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2010, 03:15 »
0
Thank you all for great advice :) It's interesting to hear that it isn't much difference in the sharpness...you would think it was when it's L!

« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2010, 05:45 »
0
I did an update from the old version to the new and I think it was definitely worth it.
The difference in image quality isn't that great, but the IS is.
With the old non-IS one I would struggle to get sharp images at 1/125 seconds, with IS I get good results at 1/15 seconds, that's three stops longer shutter speed. With good luck I have managed to get sharp results at 1/8 seconds.
Remember that IS doesn't stop moving objects/people so it's not a solution for every problem. Remember also that IS doesn't work very well att macro/closeup distances.

While the image quality difference isn't great, I still notice more "punch" in colors and better performance at large apertures (larger than 4)

« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2010, 10:09 »
0
I've owned both too. The image quality is about the same in my opinion (maybe ever so slightly better), and the IS works well. I only bought it because I was curious about the IS. The weight is good, and the lens does not feel cheap. But you should probably turn off the IS when you're shooting studio work on a tripod because sometimes the images turn out blurry with it on. If you're shooting flowers or something outdoors via your hands, then the IS can really help you out. I took this hand held: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11203590-gaillardia-flower.php

« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2010, 11:33 »
0
Thank you all for great advice :) It's interesting to hear that it isn't much difference in the sharpness...you would think it was when it's L!

From what I've read the L maybe slightly less sharp at wide open. Probably a function of the IS.

« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2010, 12:51 »
-1
Try the Zeiss ZE 100 f2 Makro...more expensive but the Zeiss optics leave Canon for dead

« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2010, 13:28 »
0
Try the Zeiss ZE 100 f2 Makro...more expensive but the Zeiss optics leave Canon for dead

Maybe so, but it doesn't have IS. And if you don't need IS (or macro) Canon's 135/2 is also a great piece of glass.

Xalanx

« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2010, 18:37 »
0
Try the Zeiss ZE 100 f2 Makro...more expensive but the Zeiss optics leave Canon for dead

Yea and you also need to manual focus like everything from Zeiss made for Canon :P

compasiune

  • Wedding photographer
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2015, 04:41 »
0
I had Canon 100 f2.8 non-L and it's great! Now i own the L version of this lens and it's great for video work and low light portrait. So it's your choice!

« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2015, 00:27 »
-1
Measurement of glow on the topic using preferred setting in camera newbielink:http://www.bluehusky.com.au/ [nonactive] or an outside light meter. Helps decide exposure.

« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2015, 08:58 »
+1
I think the 100mm Macro was originally designed mainly for table top photography. Then many photographers figured out because of it's sharpness it's also a great portrait lens. That's why Canon decided to add the IS feature. Not to improve sharpness but versatility in use. If you think, you can make good use of the IS by regularly shooting without a tripod, the IS is probably the better choice. I am happy with my non-IS one.

« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2015, 12:44 »
-2
Then many photographers figured out because of it's sharpness it's also a great portrait lens. That's why Canon decided to add the IS feature. Not to improve sharpness but versatility in use.

They are not the same lens, the L-version is slightly sharper and has better color.
I have both, and I haven't had a single urge to use the non-L version for anything, because I don't get the same results. (I have it only as a backup)

« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2015, 22:32 »
+3
I hope you are just discussing the difference, and not actually giving me advice with the latest replies....... Since the thread is 5 years old, and I bought the L version 5 years ago  ;D

« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2015, 13:08 »
0
I have the IS version, as I grabbed a copy pretty cheap barely used around $750.  Recently just discovered on a Senior Portrait session that it doubles as a great portrait lens.  Creamy bokeh deliciousness.  The IS works well.  Want to get two nice primes instead of just one?  Go with the 85mm f1.8 and the non-IS 100mm version.



Sorry, I had no idea this was an old bumped thread LOL - I hope you're enjoying the lens kjorgen!
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 11:47 by ArenaCreative »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
7189 Views
Last post January 12, 2008, 17:59
by Gregor909
10 Replies
5455 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 10:20
by Alatriste
15 Replies
20622 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 08:17
by RASimon
11 Replies
13128 Views
Last post May 25, 2012, 16:27
by WarrenPrice
8 Replies
3509 Views
Last post October 18, 2015, 17:31
by condra

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle