Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM - or non-IS ?
Discussion
I want to buy a 100mm macro lens, having seen what it can achieve on the macro thread.
I'm tempted to go with the new IS version which dpreview suggest is sharper but I'm thinking this might not be worth doing with a 450d - is a 450d able to translate the extra cost and image quality/sharpness into an image or would I need something like a 5D Mk II to see the benefit over the basic 100mm non-IS macro ?
The older non-IS lens is £400 new or £340 used and the new IS lens is £680 new.
I'm tempted to go with the new IS version which dpreview suggest is sharper but I'm thinking this might not be worth doing with a 450d - is a 450d able to translate the extra cost and image quality/sharpness into an image or would I need something like a 5D Mk II to see the benefit over the basic 100mm non-IS macro ?
The older non-IS lens is £400 new or £340 used and the new IS lens is £680 new.
Busa_Rush said:
I want to buy a 100mm macro lens, having seen what it can achieve on the macro thread.
I'm tempted to go with the new IS version which dpreview suggest is sharper but I'm thinking this might not be worth doing with a 450d - is a 450d able to translate the extra cost and image quality/sharpness into an image or would I need something like a 5D Mk II to see the benefit over the basic 100mm non-IS macro ?
The older non-IS lens is £400 new or £340 used and the new IS lens is £680 new.
I have recently acquired a second hand non-IS 100mm and it's a cracking piece of kit I'm tempted to go with the new IS version which dpreview suggest is sharper but I'm thinking this might not be worth doing with a 450d - is a 450d able to translate the extra cost and image quality/sharpness into an image or would I need something like a 5D Mk II to see the benefit over the basic 100mm non-IS macro ?
The older non-IS lens is £400 new or £340 used and the new IS lens is £680 new.
Been using it with my 450D, a set of Kenko tubes and a Marumi ringflash - short of going for an MPE65 I would wager to say it's about the best you will do. (In fact if you're going to end up paying £700ish for a 100mm with IS you might as well go the whole hog and get the MPE65!) Do you have a decent flash? I am able to shoot at 1/200 (and easily F16 or more) so maybe the image stabilisation is not going to add much
Not too sure of the subtleties here though I will confess...You do get the 'L' moniker if you go for the £700-odd jobby 
As much as I'd love one, I think I'd go for the non-L version, which is still a very good thing indeed.
Plus, the saving could get you a ringflash and some extension tubes as DD mentions.
As much as I'd love one, I think I'd go for the non-L version, which is still a very good thing indeed.
Plus, the saving could get you a ringflash and some extension tubes as DD mentions.
Edited by fathomfive on Monday 27th September 14:03
Busa_Rush said:
Thanks, don't have an external flash at all so that is something else to buy.
The MPE-65 looks very difficult to use with such a short dof, I suspect I might get on better and get better results with the 100mm first.
Good call. I found the ring flash was essential, it was a total PITA before I bought it as a slow shutter was required or else a wide open lens with no d.o.f! The Marumi flash I got second hand for around £100 - it's not the most robust piece of kit ever but works fine and as noted above lets me shoot at 1/200 (flash sync speed) with a decent aperture (say F16ish for good dof) - easy peasy The MPE-65 looks very difficult to use with such a short dof, I suspect I might get on better and get better results with the 100mm first.
So I would suggest the cheaper lens and put some dosh towards a flash.
I took the shot below hand-held with the non-IS version, and I think it's pretty sharp! I'm sure the IS is a cracking lens, but I'm not sure if there's actually much point to the IS on it.
If you're shooting something that doesn't move, then you just mount the lens on a tripod. If you're shooting stuff that does move, then at macro distances, even with IS I think you'd find it a challenge to get decent shots without an external flash, and if you've got an external flash, then there's not much need for IS!
This image was taken with a Canon MR14-EX ring flash which I picked up second hand. Kerso (who I've seen well rated on here) have them on Ebay (if you're quick!) for £375 new. Add that to a second hand non-IS 100mm, and I reckon you'll have a much better overall solution than an IS lens without a flash for only around £100 more. If that's pushing the budget, then there are decent ring flashes available for less which should let you come in under the IS price.
Oops.. Forgot the shot!
Best left unexplored by Chris Walker Epsom, on Flickr
If you're shooting something that doesn't move, then you just mount the lens on a tripod. If you're shooting stuff that does move, then at macro distances, even with IS I think you'd find it a challenge to get decent shots without an external flash, and if you've got an external flash, then there's not much need for IS!
This image was taken with a Canon MR14-EX ring flash which I picked up second hand. Kerso (who I've seen well rated on here) have them on Ebay (if you're quick!) for £375 new. Add that to a second hand non-IS 100mm, and I reckon you'll have a much better overall solution than an IS lens without a flash for only around £100 more. If that's pushing the budget, then there are decent ring flashes available for less which should let you come in under the IS price.
Oops.. Forgot the shot!
Best left unexplored by Chris Walker Epsom, on Flickr
Edited by Kermit power on Monday 27th September 15:53
Thanks, I've bought the Marumi flash ring (£109) and the IS USM version of the lens as I'll use it for other things too where IS might be useful. (£600 from Jacobs)
The macro shots I've taken so far have all been on a tripod so the IS function won't be useful there as you point out and I can't see that changing, but as it's such a great lens I'll try to use it for other things too, especially being a 2.8.
The macro shots I've taken so far have all been on a tripod so the IS function won't be useful there as you point out and I can't see that changing, but as it's such a great lens I'll try to use it for other things too, especially being a 2.8.
dibbly dobbler said:
^^^ Chris that is grotesque but great pic 
Thanks!For real entertainment value, I should've got a shot of the look on my wife's face when I took it, having suddenly left her and the kids standing on the drive half way to the car to go haring back upstairs for the camera!
Well I bought a used Tamron 90f2.8Di and a new Nissin Di866 flash built a ghetto diffuser and it gets superb results, cost me $620 NZ or so or about £300.
The canon L is a better lens especialy for potrailts/non macro work, the IS works well and goes great with a 7D with its advanced focus tracking etc too, but too much $ for me for not enough payback.
If I was buying new I would get the Sigma 70mmf2.8 macro - the sharpest of them all at 100mm or under, or the new 150mmOS, same price as the canon L but longer working distance.
ofcourse the L is weathersealed which can come in handy.
The canon L is a better lens especialy for potrailts/non macro work, the IS works well and goes great with a 7D with its advanced focus tracking etc too, but too much $ for me for not enough payback.
If I was buying new I would get the Sigma 70mmf2.8 macro - the sharpest of them all at 100mm or under, or the new 150mmOS, same price as the canon L but longer working distance.
ofcourse the L is weathersealed which can come in handy.
Kermit power said:
dibbly dobbler said:
^^^ Chris that is grotesque but great pic
Thanks!For real entertainment value, I should've got a shot of the look on my wife's face when I took it, having suddenly left her and the kids standing on the drive half way to the car to go haring back upstairs for the camera!
t ) made me chuck it out the window 
. I wanted to stick it in the fridge for a bit to subdue it then get some nice macro shots. Apparently I'm 'weird' 
dibbly dobbler said:
Kermit power said:
dibbly dobbler said:
^^^ Chris that is grotesque but great pic
Thanks!For real entertainment value, I should've got a shot of the look on my wife's face when I took it, having suddenly left her and the kids standing on the drive half way to the car to go haring back upstairs for the camera!
t ) made me chuck it out the window . I wanted to stick it in the fridge for a bit to subdue it then get some nice macro shots. Apparently I'm 'weird' I didn't have time to go back for the camera this morning, as I was running a bit late to get to the station (for my train which subsequently took an hour to do the 33 minute journey to Waterloo! 
), but I opened the front door to discover that the spider had moved...
Her new web was perfectly centred over the archway of our front porch!
), but I opened the front door to discover that the spider had moved...Her new web was perfectly centred over the archway of our front porch!
Kermit power said:
I didn't have time to go back for the camera this morning, as I was running a bit late to get to the station (for my train which subsequently took an hour to do the 33 minute journey to Waterloo! ), but I opened the front door to discover that the spider had moved...
Her new web was perfectly centred over the archway of our front porch!
Excellent - looking forward to seeing some pics on the macro thread later tonight ), but I opened the front door to discover that the spider had moved...Her new web was perfectly centred over the archway of our front porch!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff