Cristi Owen Photography » Canon lens 100 mm f2.8 macro VS Canon lens 100 mm f2.8 L macro

Canon lens 100 mm f2.8 macro VS Canon lens 100 mm f2.8 L macro

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 logo Posted in Tips for Photographers

For a while now I’ve been wanting to invest in a macro lens. However, I have yet to purchase one simply because I can’t decide which one to get. After much research, I narrowed it down to the Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro and the Canon 100 mm f2.8 L macro. For the purposes of this blog post, I will just call them the “L lens” and the “non L lens”. I decided to spend $50, rent them both and try them out to decide for myself which one is the best buy for me. The L lens is normally around $950, but Canon has a $60 rebate right now and the “non L lens” is usually around $500. So here are some shots I took today. They are all STRAIGHT OUT OF CAMERA, but are sharpened and resized for the web. Since I’d mostly use my macro lens to photograph rings, that’s what my subjects are for these next shots. I DID NOT use a tripod as I usually don’t use a tripod on a wedding day. To keep this an unbiased comparison for you, I won’t tell you the lenses until the end of the post. Get a pen and a piece of paper and start guessing. f2.8, 1/125, iso 800 (yes, I moved a little)

f2.8, 1/125, iso 800, manual focus (hmm, yeah, i moved again… better start getting used to it)

f2.8, 1/80, iso 200, auto focus

f2.8, 1/60, iso 250, auto focus

f2.8, 1/160, iso 800, manual focus

Do you have all your guesses? So here are the answers: All of the images on the left were taken with the “non L lens”. All the images on the right were taken with the “L lens” All of the top images were taken with the “non L lens”. All of the bottom images were taken with the “L lens” How did you do? What do you think? Which lens would you buy? It seems to me that the “L lens” does let a little more light in than the “non L lens” which would be great for those dark getting ready rooms :) Also, it is worth noting that the “L lens” does have IS. I was able to handhold the “non L lens” only down to 1/40 sec and have it be completely sharp. At 1/30 sec I couldn’t handhold it anymore. Any questions or experiments you would like to see? I only have both lenses until tomorrow.

13 comments
send to a friend

2. Kendra Jean Photography
3. Ohh! I am good! I guessed the “L” lens on all of the right images and all of the bottom images! Great review! I have been looking into some macro lenses as well, so this is perfect timing for me :)
4. Tuesday, December 7, 2010
5. 7:25 pm
7. Emily Abril
8. I thought I lost my “non L Lens” so I went out an bought the “L lens” – I use it A LOT for my baby photography so it is a must for me. I think the image stabilizer makes a huge DIFFERENCE to me. Anyways my client found my “non L Lens” and I am about to sell it. =)
9. Tuesday, December 7, 2010
10. 7:31 pm
12. megan resch
13. i definitely see a difference. i think it’s worth it.
14. Tuesday, December 7, 2010
15. 9:07 pm
17. Kelly
18. Loving the “L” lens :) Gorgeous pictures.
19. Tuesday, December 7, 2010
20. 9:07 pm
22. Megan Salonga
23. I was right! You can see the difference in the L lens,and I agree it does seem to let more light in. Go for it! :)
24. Tuesday, December 7, 2010
25. 9:18 pm
27. Kelly Cummings
28. I’m not a Canon user so my thoughts don’t actually matter on the subject but how much difference would there be if you just increased the exposure in post on the non-L?
  
  I think the main thing I like better about the L examples is the increased contrast the extra light gives, but it seems like that would be pretty easy to achieve post, right? The IS might make it worth it, you could post some experiments in lower lighting to show how much the stabilization helps!
  
  I think if you’d want the L later it’s good to go ahead and invest!
29. Tuesday, December 7, 2010
30. 10:08 pm
32. Jessica
33. LLLLLLLLLLL all the way!!!!
  I’m super jealous, I want a new lens! ha
34. Tuesday, December 7, 2010
35. 10:56 pm
37. Christa Scott
38. I picked most of the photos with “L” – definitely let more light in & the photos “popped” more too! This is such an awesome lens!! Great purchase! Thanks for the comparison, it is always good to know for sure that the extra “L” is worth the extra money!
39. Tuesday, December 7, 2010
40. 11:36 pm
42. Kimberly Jarman
43. I guessed all L. I have the 100 macro non l and love it. I only use it for details and some portraits. I didn’t know they have an L. I would probably go L since it’s not a huge difference in price, but you’ll do just fine either way I think. All the shots look good, but I can tell a difference. Good comparison!!!
44. Wednesday, December 8, 2010
45. 7:25 am
47. Erika Snow
48. Thanks so much for this review! I am looking into the same lens for newborns, but was undecided on ‘L or non-L’ This helps a lot! Dang you L glass for being so fabulous!
49. Wednesday, December 8, 2010
50. 2:25 pm
52. Cristi
53. So glad it was helpful!
54. Friday, December 10, 2010
55. 2:05 pm
57. Heather Kincaid
58. I love that you did this! Thanks so much for all the comparisons. I definitely see a difference especially on that last shot.
  xo
59. Tuesday, December 14, 2010
60. 12:21 pm
62. Jennifer Bowen
63. Great review Cristi! I just upgraded to the L lens in December myself and noticed a big difference with the handheld IS factor immediately. One of my only complaints about the older non-L lens is that I would have to take about 5-7 shots of the rings in the same setup to get a really super in focus shot – always using manual focus override – and with diamonds, you want uber-sharp focus. Im excited to use it with newborns too since I often shoot those in low light situations and the IS will help a great deal there.
64. Tuesday, January 4, 2011
65. 9:58 pm