A&P Canon 100mm 2.8 USM vs 100mm 2.8L IS USM?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Ty Webb, Jan 8, 2010.

  1. Ty Webb

    Ty Webb You don't have to go to college. This isn't Russia

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,927
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bushwood Country Club
    Is it worth the extra 600 for the L version? I'm leaning toward it for Macro product photography.
     
  2. ThexToddster

    ThexToddster New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    20,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Woodcrest, CA
    Go L or go home
     
  3. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Gvidon

    Gvidon New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,893
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    L for bragging rights and giggles.
     
  5. horselover fat

    horselover fat in your driveway stealing your internet

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    0
    why would you need IS for product pics? is the product moving? if so, it would make sense to go with IS
     
  6. Ty Webb

    Ty Webb You don't have to go to college. This isn't Russia

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,927
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bushwood Country Club
    Maybe there is a significant difference in quality?
     
  7. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    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.
     
  8. Keiphus

    Keiphus my dog eats bears

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    its all about that time attack look
     
  9. ok_computer

    ok_computer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,615
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    If the product is moving, that would be the reason NOT to buy IS :hsugh:
     
  10. ok_computer

    ok_computer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,615
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    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.
     
  11. the Rosswog

    the Rosswog OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    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.
     
  12. adamlewis88

    adamlewis88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    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
     
  13. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    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...
     

Share This Page