Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Ty Webb, Jan 8, 2010.
Is it worth the extra 600 for the L version? I'm leaning toward it for Macro product photography.
Go L or go home
I've played with both, albeit briefly, and I could not see a $600 difference...
Then again I think I prefer the Tamron 90mm over the Canon 100mm for macro work.
L for bragging rights and giggles.
why would you need IS for product pics? is the product moving? if so, it would make sense to go with IS
Maybe there is a significant difference in quality?
That L looks pretty sweet, but the standard 100 macro was one of the sharpest Canon lenses I owned. I'd save the money and go for the standard one.
its all about that time attack look
If the product is moving, that would be the reason NOT to buy IS
And obviously, like all L lenses, it'll be sharper, and the contrast and color will be WAY better. I'm sure it's worth it.
Plus, the old Canon 100mm has shitty build, it feels cheap.
100mm 2.8 Macro is an amazing lens.
If you're looking for a product photography lens, just buy it. Don't think twice.
I own one and make a significant amount of income with it. I love mine.
...and the build quality doesn't feel cheap. Anyways, ok_computer, you posted a bunch of subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the actual real-life performance of the lens.
If its just for product photography, id get the non l version. If you're going to use it for anything else not on a tripod (like portraits or something), the is could be a big benefit
the non L is about as sharp as it gets and solid as hell.. i dont agree that it feels cheap - just different to other canon lenses due to its odd shape. I wouldn't bother paying 600 more unless its going to pay for itself in the images you take...