New Macro lens.

[Dejavu]

First off I know there is a tread on which macro lens, but there isn't much info on the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Len. I'm looking to get a new macro lens. I have the ability to use a Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Len when needed but don't own my own. So I was looking for something different. Here are the lens I'm looking at: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Len or Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Len.

So here my question.. Is the Image stabilization on the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Len worth the $300 more than not having it on the the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Len. I have a nice tripod and would be using it for taking images of my reef tank 99% of the time. The only advantage to the Image stabilization, I see is for top down, since I don't have a setup for my trpiod for this. Any first hand experience would be great. Thanks!

 

[Reef Bass]

If your macro lens is going to supported by a tripod, then there is not much point to getting the IS version. I have the non IS model and it has been awesome on the tripod in front of my tanks. If I were hand holding outdoors a lot, I would consider IS.

The other difference between the two you mention is the L glass and that can be worth it right there. I honestly feel the non L model takes a great picture, but in theory it could be even clearer with the L model.

 

[BlueCorn]

The other difference between the two you mention is the L glass and that can be worth it right there. I honestly feel the non L model takes a great picture, but in theory it would be clearer with the L model.

That's like saying your car is faster if it has racing stickers. :lol:

The older version is super sharp and a great buy.

 

[dendronepthya]

Do you shoot video ever? I want IS on all my lenses regardless of focal length because I like to shoot video.

 

[Reef Bass]

That's like saying your car is faster if it has racing stickers. :lol:

For the edification of those of us who are weak in mind and budget, are you saying that L glass doesn't make a difference?

Thanks.

 

[Dejavu]

If your macro lens is going to supported by a tripod, then there is not much point to getting the IS version. I have the non IS model and it has been awesome on the tripod in front of my tanks. If I were hand holding outdoors a lot, I would consider IS.

The other difference between the two you mention is the L glass and that can be worth it right there. I honestly feel the non L model takes a great picture, but in theory it could be even clearer with the L model.

Thanks for the reply. I would guess 90% of the use of this lens would be on a tripod. The non L model was the one I was leaning towards after reading a bunch of reviews.

Do you shoot video ever? I want IS on all my lenses regardless of focal length because I like to shoot video.

Yes I do but I think a 50mm would be better for this. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

[Misled]

:mtool: Not tool, but I'll throw a wrench in here. The Tamron 90mm is a very sharp lens in it's own right. The extra 10mm may be nice but............



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755344-USA/Sigma_106101_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

 

[Dejavu]

:mtool: Not tool, but I'll throw a wrench in here. The Tamron 90mm is a very sharp lens in it's own right. The extra 10mm may be nice but............



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755344-USA/Sigma_106101_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

Hmm... I did think about it but I might have to put more thought I to it. I agree that the Tamron is nice if it was mine I wouldn't be even looking at 100mm's. On the other hand 150mm might be better.

 

[BlueCorn]

For the edification of those of us who are weak in mind and budget, are you saying that L glass doesn't make a difference?

Thanks.

The term "L glass" just refers to Canon's "Luxury" line. It's just a higher quality lens as a whole. It doesn't necessarily mean its made from different raw materials; although some certainly are. Many folks consider the standard 100 macro to be "L" quality in its own right.

 

[Recty]

IIRC, the L version of the 100mm macro is weather sealed.

In my mind, if I was going to be mainly shooting tanks and indoor things that I can easily set up a tripod and never worry much about hand holding, I'd save the extra $$$ buying the non L and put it into something else.

If I wanted to be outside a lot, possibly in the rain/snow and doing lots of handholding, I'd pick the L version.

Decide what you want to do, and pick the lens that best fits it.

And if you just have more than enough money to throw around, buy the L lens for sure as most likely it's going to take a slightly sharper, slightly better picture with less CA and other annoying things that probably isnt going to make a difference in the real world, but L glass is L glass, it's going to be better in some ways.

 

[Reef Bass]

Thanks for 'splainin Doug. I was under the misconception that all L lenses featured low iron glass.

 

[astrogazer]

I am a fan of Image Stabilization, however due to the nature of a macro lens and its intended 1:1 use, with DoF being less than half an inch you will most certainly be using a tripod making IS a moot point.
Unless you plan on doing hand held macro work I'd save the couple hundred bucks.

Course that being said my Nikkor 105mm Micro is an IS lens

 

[Dejavu]

Thanks for all the input! Still havn't decided but leaning towards get the non "L" and using the rest of the money on an other lens.