Canon 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro Lens

[JeffSmith]

Hi, does any own this lens? I've decided to buy a macro lens and I wondered if the new Canon 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro series lens is worth the additional cost over the standard non-L series version.

Any advice is welcome

cheers,

Jeff

[BCampbell]

L series lenses are Canon's top of the line, so there will definitely be a quality difference. As always, good glass is a good investment, too.

If you are shooting with an APS-C Canon, you may not notice as much of a difference as with a fulle-frame body, as L-series lenses are usually designed with more attention to the corners of the image, which just get cropped off on the smaller sensors.

Since you're not limited to just shooting macro with a macro lens, and 100mm is a pretty useful focal length on both APS-C and full frame, this could turn into a go-to lens for a lot of applications, considering the L-series quality.

Here's a good review comparing the two directly. I suppose it all comes down to your wallet, but it does sound like an excellent lens. Hope this helps.

edit: Also note that the L takes a larger than standard filter, so factor that into the almost double cost of the non-L lens.

[natek313]

Optically, both lenses are excellent. I have the 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens, and I asbolutely love it.

The bokeh on the L lens is slightly better, and it is weather sealed, which may or may not be useful depending on your camera body. If I remember correctly, the L lens is only slightly heavier than the non-L lens.

Honestly, I think you would be happy with either lens. You just have to determine if cost differential is worth it. For me, I pretty much only use my 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM for macro work; I think I may have used it a few times for portraits. If you're only going to use it for macro work, you may not find the IS very useful since you should be using a tripod to begin with. I have not seen a comparison between the two lenses showing a huge difference in image quality. Both lenses are excellent and tack sharp.

[RichardTaylor]

Have a look at some of the posts here (page 3).

Flickr: Discussing The new 100mm "L" macro! in Canon DSLR User Group

[JeffSmith]

Many thanks guys, most helpful

There are a few non-L series going on eBay for around £400 As the L series is quite new, I've not seen any on the used market.

I can get a new L series for £575 + VAT. Would you pay and additional £200 for a new L series? I'm swaying this way at the moment unless anyone has a counter argument?

Cheers,

Jeff

[RichardTaylor]

I would go for the L lens..

[JeffSmith]

I've just had a peep on the Canon photography forum and there's a thread on this lens with plenty of sample shots - they're unbelieveable! The sharpness is untrue with a real tangible difference between the L and the non-L.

Decision made, I'll be ordering the L series and I'll post a couple of pics when I get it. Thanks for your views everyone, very much appreciated

Jeff

PS If you have this lens, please post some pics, I'd love to see them.

[JeffSmith]

Here's a comparison chart for the L and non-L at the Canon web site:

Canon UK - ProductSelector

[fredzilla]

I own the L series lens. It's my favorite lens. The quality is superb. Takes great fotos of any kind be it macro or landscape. Here are a few to let you see what it can do...

[irispatch]

One word of caution. The original version of the 100mm 2.8 Macro has been discontinues so 1 stocks will be hard to come by and eventually canon service will stop.