smiller999 Loc: Corpus Christi

I've had one for a number of years, and it still gets a lot of use. Mainly for macros. Very sharp and great color rendition.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I did not buy the Canon lens you are considering; I bought the new Yongnuo 100mm F2 medium telephoto prime lens for my Canon EOS Rebel camera (it fits my Canon 5D too). The price and the research I did convinced me to buy it and I am happy I bought it. Price: $169.69--found a new one in Shen Zhen, China and it was delivered in two weeks. It pays to look around using Yahoo! and don't jump on the first ones listed. Of course I could've bought a new Canon lens for $475 also an F2 with Image Stabilization (IS) but I don't need IS for this medium lens. If you use Live View then DO NOT buy this lens, it won't work (I never use live view). The bokeh is nice on this lens as well as the asteral effect (has 9 blades). Weight:18.6 oz. Study it's features. I purchased this Yongnuo Feb. 2017. I think they also make this lens for Nikon.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Canon 100L Macro is a great lens!

I don't own it. I use the less expensive, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM instead. Canon still makes and sells both lenses. I had the 100mm Macro before the 100L was introduced. I looked at it closesly, but never found need to "upgrade".

The 100L is generally thought to have ever so slightly better image quality (this doesn't always show up in lens tests due to copy variations and whether or not the lenses were Micro Focus Asjusted). Both lenses can basically be considered "very sharp" with "excellent image quality".

100L has Image Stabilization.... But that's of limited usefulness at macro magnifications. At non-macro distances, IS is much more effective. Most of my macro shooting is done on a tripod or at least a monopod, anyway. And I'm often using flash that serves to freeze subject movement (which IS can't do), as well as eliminate most "camera shake".

You might expect an L to be better built than a non-L. The 100L certainly has a more "modern" look to it. But the 100mm non-L is virtually identical in design, built materials and functionality to the EF 180mm f/3.5"L". The only reason the 100mm non-L isn't an L is because it doesn't require "exotic optical elements" to be as sharp as it is. The 100 non-L may not have a red stripe painted on it, but it has the quality, durability, materials and performance of an L, none the less.

Both lenses can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. Among lenses in the 105/100mm and shorter focal lengths, this is unique to these two Canon 100s. No other manufacturer I'm aware of offers that option on a lens shorter than 150mm and most are 180mm or 200mm. The 100mm non-L uses the same Tripod Ring B as the Canon 180mm, 65mm and some other lenses. The 100L macro exclusively uses the slightly more expensive Tripod Ring D. (Canon's ultra high magnification MP-E 65mm is the only other macro lens 100mm or shorter I know of that can be fitted with a tripod ring. In fact, one is included with the MP-E 65mm.)

The 100mm non-L uses 58mm filters and the Canon macro flashes (MR14EX Ring Lite and MT24EX Twin Lite) are designed to mount directly to it (as well as the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro and MP-E 65mm f/2.8 Ultra Macro 1X-5X). The 100L uses larger diameter 67mm filters and needs Macrolite Adapter 67C to be able to mount the Canon macro flashes. (The EF 180mm L Macro also has larger diameter, 72mm filter thread... and requires Macrolite Adapter 72C to mount the Canon flashes.)

Both Canon 100mm macro lenses uses USM focus drive... This makes for good, although not super fast AF as it does in some other lenses. By design, these and Canon's other macro lenses have relatively long "focus throw" that emphasizes accuracy over speed. While certainly quick enough for things like portraits, these lenses aren't the best choice to shoot fast sports action. No macro lens is, for that matter.

Both lenses have Focus Limiters to help AF performance in certain circumstances. The 100L's limiter is a three-stage type, while the non-L lens' is a simpler two-stage.

Both lenses are internal focusing (IF), meaning they don't increase in size when focused closer. This can be important with a macro lens, where a lens that increases in length will reduce already minimal working distances at higher magnifications.

Both Canon 100mm are able to render full 1:1 maximum magnification. At that max mag, the older (2000) 100mm non-L actually has slightly greater minimum focus distance (MFD) of 12.2" inches compared to the newer 100L (2009) with an MFD of 11.8 inches. A little less than a half inch. Might not sound like much, but consider that 100L also is a slightly longer lens: 4.84 inches versus 4.69 inches of the non-L. MFD is measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera. So part of the camera body (about 1.74 inch in the case of a Canon DSLR) and the lens itself occupy much of the MFD. The net result here is that the Canon 100mm non-L lens ends up with about 5.77 inches of "working distance". In comparison, the 100L's "working distance" from the front of the lens to the subject at the lens' max magnification is 5.22 inches... a full half inch less. (Both lens working distance dimension excludes the lens hood, which would further reduce it.)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro sells for $899, making it one of the most expensive macro lenses in the 90/100/105mm range. It includes the matched lens hood. Tripod Ring D costs $172 (there may be less expensive 3rd party clone tripod rings avail., but avoid the super cheap, ~$25 plastic ones).

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro sells for $599. It doesn't include the ET-67 lens hood, which is rather large and pricey at $35 (there are Vello and other "clones" for around $15). Tripod Ring B sells for $150 (there may be less expensive 3rd party clone tripod rings avail., but avoid the super cheap, ~$25 plastic ones).

In all honesty, if I were shopping today I would have to give the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro lens serious consideration. It used to be more expensive than even the Canon 100L, but Sigma has heavily discounted it a lot recently and it is now selling for $569 ($400 off list price). It's got image quality and AF performance equal to both the Canon, and just as good image stabilization as the 100L. Like the Canon lenses it is internal focusing, uses ultrasonic focus drive and has a focus limiter (three-stage). At about 5.26 inches, it's "working distance" is also very similar to the 100L's (roughly 1/2 inch less than the 100 non-L). One thing that puts me off the Sigma 105mm Macro is that there's no option to fit a tripod mounting ring to it. The way I use my macro lenses, that would be a deal killer for me.

You can compare the image quality of the two Canon 100mm here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3 Spoiler alert... not much difference to be seen. Keep in mind that the test shots shown are highly magnified and are done with the 50MP 5DS-R and the high resolution camera is very unforgiving of any lens shortcomings. You also can compare to other macro lenses, such as the Sigma 105mm... and perhaps the two different Tamron 90mm and the Tokina 100mm.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Yongnuo 100mm f/2 is not a macro lens! It's a nice, short telephoto. It focuses to about 3 feet to give 0.14X magnification at best (roughly 1:6... versus 1.0X 1:1 possible with most macro lenses).

In fact, that Yongnuo lens is an almost direct copy and rip off of the Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM (they even look the same!), which also isn't a macro lens and should not be confused with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro or Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro lenses, both capable of focusing to about 1 foot and full 1:1 magnification.

Both the Yongnuo YN 100mm f/2 (non-macro) and the Canon EF 100mm f/2 (non-macro) have been discontinued. Neither ever had image stabilization. The Canon lens sold for about $399 when it was still available, while the Yongnuo last sold new for about half that ($199). Nice, compact lenses, they simply were not very well known or popular sellers, falling so close in between 85mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2 lenses in the Canon line-up, as well as similar from various third party manufacturers (including Yongnuo).

one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY

I have the 100mm f2.8 (non IS, non L). I purchased it after reading Ken Rockwell review of both the L and non L. I have to say the image quality is very good. I use it on an 80D but I still sometimes find I need to get up a little close for macro shots of small subjects (ie. bees). Also, the depth of field is mighty thin. I'm now considering picking up a used Canon 180mm L Macro after reading K Rockwell's review stating it's one of the sharpest Canon lens ever made. (As sharp as the 70-200mm f2.8 L.)

Macro lenses make me long for focus stacking.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have both Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM and EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro lenses. For many years (10+?) I've used them on both full frame and APS-C cameras. (I also have a Tamron 60mm "crop only" macro, Canon's ultra high magnification 65mm 1X-5X macro, a vintage Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro and several non-macro lenses I use for close-up work, with and without macro extension tubes.)

I use the 100mm far more often. It's easily my most-used macro lens and is simply a more "practical" focal length for a lot of purposes. Sure, there are times it puts you too close to certain subjects. But compared to longer focal length (150, 180, 200mm) macro, it's much faster to get "on target", has a lot more depth of field. If you think DoF is "might thin" with the 100mm on 80D (APS-C), you should see how razor thin it gets with a 180 on full frame! In fact, here's an example (was shot on film so there is no EXIF and I don't recall the lens aperture, but think it was pretty close to the EF 180mm's maximum f/3.5)...



The Canon 180mm f/3.5L also is not very fast focusing... it's slower than the 100mm USM Macro, which itself isn't exactly a speed demon. Don't plan to use the 180mm for any sort of "action" photography!

All this sounds like I don't like the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro lens.... that's not the case. It's a great lens, but it's pretty specialized. It's great when you need a lot of working distance with a shy subject... or one that bites or stings! Here's a California tarantula that wasn't very happy about having its photo taken, even from a moderate distance with a 180mm lens...



Besides, where a 100mm macro lens at full 1:1 has a minimum focus distance (MFD) around 12 inches... with 180mm lens it's roughly inches. Where working distance between front of a 100mm macro and subject at full 1:1 is about 5 inches, the working distance at max magnification for the 180mm is about 9.5 inches.

Bees?

EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro...


EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro...


Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 Macro...


But I'll certainly get out the 180mm for any "murder hornets" I see!

P.S. Both 100mm and 180mm are sharper than any of the Canon 70-200s (I have two of those, too).

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with 25mm extension tube...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The various 70-200L lenses are fine, but all of Canon's prime lenses are sharper, whether the L versions or other.

Haydon

I own the L version and find it a versatile lens for both portrait and maco. Very sharp with minimal distortion. It's one of my favorite lenses.

This poll is old but Bob Atkins site rates it the highest among surveyed users.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html

Here's an outdoor shot with black foamcore slid behind the rose with a diffusion panel inserted above to soften the light.

(Download)

SENSORLOUPE

I have Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro and shoot Canon. I think it is a great lens. Check it out

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have it.
Love it.
Very sharp.
IS is an absolute must.
Is great when doing macro shots when on a little walk without a tripod.
Yes the IS is that good.
Makes a great 100mm prime with IS.
The IS is why I chose it and am so glad I did.
Again works wonders in close macro shots.

Dave MWC

Excellent lens, I shoot a lot of bugs and this lens is very sharp even very close. Also works great with a ring flash when the situation requires

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Some quotes from Ken Rockwell about the Canon's macro lenses and what he uses...

Regarding the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM (2000, non-L/non-IS version, $599 + $35 for ET67 hood + $150 for Tripod Ring B)....

"I love this lens. It does everything well and has no weak points.

It's hard to convey this in writing. This is one of those lenses that works so well, efficiently and effortlessly you wonder why all lenses can't be this good.

By comparison, Canon's 50mm macro works well, but sounds like a toy when it focuses. [Rockwell is referring to the EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro 1:2, which was discontinued years ago] This 100mm focuses instantly in near-silence.

This is Canon's most practical macro lens. The reason you buy it instead of the 50mm is because when you're close to a subject, you can be so close that you can annoy insects or block your own light. This 100mm lets you step back a little further.

This Canon 100mm is less expensive than any of the Nikon 105mm Micro (Macro) lenses, and it works better than either, too. It's easy to use and works great.

This Canon macro doesn't have image stabilization. This isn't a problem, since I and most people shoot all my real macro shots with flash."

Regarding Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro (2009, L/IS version, $899 + $172 for Tripod Ring D)...

"Good

Excellent optics, superb autofocus, light weight and fantastic Image Stabilization for ultra-sharp results even hand-held at one-eighth of a second — if your subject holds still that long and you're a smooth shooter.

Bad

For $1,000 all I get is an all-plastic exterior and crappy plastic hood? At least the lens mount is metal, exactly like the $125 Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D.

Except for Image Stabilization, the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro has equally excellent optics, autofocus and ergonomics, with less weight, for half the price.

For anything at least 3 feet away, the Canon 100mm f/2 USM is sharper, offers twice the speed for moving subjects (f/2.0), a metal filter thread, and is also half the price of this 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro.

For serious macro work, macro-specialists (and I) prefer the 180mm f/3.5 L USM, because it lets us stand far enough away as not to interfere with lighting or the subject's attitude, and most importantly, gives a more natural perspective precisely because we're able to stand further away from our subjects. The 180/3.5 doesn't cost much more than this 100mm f/2.8 IS."

Note: By my calculations $899 isn't "$1000" and $599 isn't "half the price". Maybe this is the "new math"?

I also think some of his disparaging remarks about the lens materials are silly. Today's cameras and lenses use quite a bit of "engineered, reinforced plastic" and in some ways it's superior to metal. Quality plastic can take a bump and bounce right back into shape... where metal would dent or crack. I've got 20 year old lens plastic Canon lens hoods that look like crap, but have done their job and are still doing it well. Oh, and filters tend to get stuck on metal filter threads, Ken. That's rarely a problem with the plastic filter threads Canon uses on many of their lenses, including quite a few premium L-series.

For that matter, I've got carbon fiber tripods, carbon fiber golf club shafts, carbon fiber lens hoods, and even carbon fiber bicycles that manage to support my 180 lbs.! Carbon fiber is a form of engineered, reinforced plastic!

Oh, and the Canon 100mm f/2 USM (non-macro lens) he recommends as a "faster, cheaper, lighter, smaller" alternative has been discontinued (probably sold poorly because it was too similar to the 85mm f/1.8 USM). Time to update your website Ken!

Regarding the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM (1997, $1399, hood & Tripod Ring B included)...

"If you can't get a sharp photo with this lens, you're doing something wrong. It needs to be held still; mirror lockup will help when shot at speeds between 1/4 to 1/30. Its long focal length will show clearly any atmospheric heat shimmer typically when shooting at distances longer than about 50 feet (15 meters) outdoors.

Better than optical perfection (almost all lenses are imperfect and more than good enough to make great photos), this lens is an all-metal mechanical masterpiece. The only plastic is the dinky bayonet hood."

Again, "For serious macro work, macro-specialists (and I) prefer the 180mm f/3.5 L USM, because it lets us stand far enough away as not to interfere with lighting or the subject's attitude, and most importantly, gives a more natural perspective precisely because we're able to stand further away from our subjects. The 180/3.5 doesn't cost much more than this 100mm f/2.8 IS."

And, "For serious macro work, like making the product photos of this lens for this review, I use a 200mm macro lens, which in Canon, is the 180mm f/3.5 L USM, which doesn't sell for much more than this IS 100mm Macro.

Image stabilization (IS) is not relevant to serious macro work, which is done with strobes to allow us to shoot at f/32 to hope to get something in focus. IS is extremely useful for general-purpose hand-held telephoto shooting..."

Check my math again, please. To me $899 seems like quite a bit less than $1399. Of course, the latter price includes a tripod ring, while the $899 lens would end up costing $1071 by the time you add a Tripod Ring D to it. Still, unless I'm miscalculating, $1071 is quite a bit less than $1399.

The statement "I use a 200mm macro lens..." reveals something here. The only 200mm macro lens I'm aware of is the Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED which sells for $1792 (tripod ring included, HN-30 lens hood sold separately for $48). That lens is sharper than the Micro-Nikkor AF-S VR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED (2006-present, $807, w/ lens hood included, no tripod ring avail. or possible). But the 200mm Micro-Nikkor is a "D-type" lens. It doesn't have an autofocus motor. It relies on a focusing motor built into the body of select Nikon DSLRs... the D7000-series and higher. The 200mm Micro-Nikkor is a manual focus-only lens on all D3000-series and D5000-series Nikons. Earlier 105mm Micro-Nikkors are legendary for their image quality, including the AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D (1990-2007, upgraded to AF-D in 1993, 1:1) and manual focus AI-s Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 (1983 until just recently, $775, 1:2 magnification). While Rockwell praises the build and image quality of the current AF-S, VR version.... I've seen several reviews that give it less than top marks for IQ. Maybe it was copy variation.

At any rate, Rockwell is using Nikon gear... Not the Canon gear he's voicing all these opinions about.

I always take Rockwell with a grain of salt.

He also talks at length about using f/32 when shooting macro, which guaranteed to spoil your digital images with a lot of diffraction. I try not to stop down more than f/11 with APS-C or f/16 on full frame.

And he talks of using a 200mm lens for product photography, which is absurd. I usually use Canon's TS-E 45mm Tilt Shift lens with crop sensor cameras or the TS-E 90mm Tilt Shift with full frame.... Occasionally with very small items I might use 90mm or 100mm to around 1:1, or Canon's MP-E 65mm for greater than 1:1 magnification. Product photograph is usually done indoors, in a studio. Rockwell claims to use the Micro-Nikkor 200mm to shoot all the photo gear he uploads as oversized images on his website. With camera bodies and lenses far less than 1:1 is needed... meaning they will be shot from a greater distance. He must have a HUGE studio to be able to shoot those with a 200mm focal length! The primary reason I use shorter focal lengths is so I can reach out and adjust small products while checking composition, etc. through the viewfinder or on the camera's rear LCD screen. I have never had any problem "shading the subject" in controlled lighting situations, such as table-top studio work. (However, I do recommend steering clear of macro lenses much shorter than 90 or 100mm for outdoor, field work, because they put you too close and might cause problems shading subjects... if they aren't scared away by you and your lens.)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Good summary.

James Pepoon

100mm is my favorite all around format.. The two lens I use are the Nikon 105mm and a 100mm vintage Nikon "E" series. The E series (low budget) was discontinued many years ago by Nikon. I have gotten quite a bit of use out of mine and actually prefer it to the 105mm which has been a Nikon standard but doesn't close focus. I shoot mainly with Nikon Fs with the HP high eyepoint installed (wear glasses). Also use a Nikon Coolpix 8700 which is an extremely versatile micro Nikon system(only 8meg) for travel and wildlife. Enlarges to "poster" size and has raw mode if needed. Learned a lot from this great website! Used to live in Ft. Lauderdale and miss this photo area.

dragonlady9947

I have this lens. I love it and use it all the time.