Canon Macro 100 L vs Non L: I have the canon 7d and I am looking to purchase the Canon 100 macro. I am trying to decide between the 100L and non L. Is there anyone who have used both...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Canon Macro 100 L vs Non L

Page 1 of 2 next>

Dec 31, 2012 10:32:03 #

jam Loc: Beaufort, NC

I have the canon 7d and I am looking to purchase the Canon 100 macro. I am trying to decide between the 100L and non L. Is there anyone who have used both and what are your recommendations? I will be using mainly handheld. Is the extra money for the IS worth it?

Thank you for any help.

Dec 31, 2012 13:39:03 #

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Last year, I upgraded from a Nikkor 105D (A-F but no IS) to a Nikkor 105G (A-F + IS). I am now, much more pleased with my "keep rate". Heartbeat, breathing, and natural muscle tremor factor into hand-held macro-photography.

Several macro-photographers on UHH use Canon cameras with Canon & non-Canon lenses. You will receive a variety of opinions.

Dec 31, 2012 14:04:53 #

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Nikonian72 wrote:

Concur as a user of the Nikkor 105G and the value of IS (Nikon labels it VR).

Dec 31, 2012 18:21:40 #

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The glass on the L version specs out better than the USM version, but the price is steep... The 100 USM has always reviewed as one of Canon's best lenses even though it was not an L... So I guess it comes down to if you really want to spend the money or not, I am pretty sure that you will be happy with either lens.

Jan 1, 2013 06:57:49 #

Mulachabu Loc: Sydney Australia

I have had these two lenses and still have the L, optically it is generally accepted that both are excellent, strangely enough I think the L searches more when focussing other than that nothing else stands out, except, as has been sugested by others, the IS can be a benefit and may well contribute to sharper images, especially if you have a tremor etc. If you predominantly hand hold your shots then it may well be worth the extra investment to get the IS but from a purely optical perspective I think that they are essentially identical.

Jan 1, 2013 07:55:47 #

richardh76 Loc: VT, Central, Champlain Valley

OK, I'll chime in. I have had both. In reading the specs on the L, and since I'm an old guy I needed the IS, I decided to take the regular 100 lens that I had and turned it in for the 100 L. I have never looked back, it is probably the lens that is on my camera the most. Since I take a ton of hand held shots, it is my walk about lens. If you go there you won't regret it. Good Luck and happy hunting!!
Richard

Jan 1, 2013 08:44:25 #

jam Loc: Beaufort, NC

Thanks for the comments. I am loooking forward to doing some macro work. Most of what I have done has been landscapes, sports and birds. I have used a 70-200 with a 1.4 converter to try and get in close but now I am ready to try real macro work. Again thank you for your help.

Jan 1, 2013 08:48:50 #

Al FR-153 Loc: Chicago Suburbs

I am going to chime in on the side of the 100mm L glass too. I haven't shot the non-L but can tell you that I love the IS and the 2.8 of the EF 100 f/2.8 L USM Macro. BTW, I bought mine refurbished, directly from Canon and with a solid year of shooting with it, have no regrets, what so ever. And yes, the IS is worth every penny. I'm not very good at birds in flight shooting, but bumble bees, this lens is great.

Note to Douglass... I know it isn't true macro, but the question was on the lens. Maybe someone that shoots ladybug's painted toenails can post an example of true macro, I don't. :lol:

Bumble Bee in Flight