Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens Review

[neuroanatomist]

Great review - thanks, Bryan!


I'm looking to get into macro, but now I'm in something of a quandary - going price for the 100mm 2.8L IS macro is $1050. For pretty much the same amount, I can get the100mm 2.8 non-IS macro the MR-14EX ring lite. So, how much macro photography is flash-assisted, and for the proportion that is, is a ring lite necessary, or can I get by with a Speedlite, perhaps with an off-camera cord?


A secondary quandary was partially suggested by wickerprints - how much duplication will this lens mean for the 85mm 1.8 lens in my kit (I'm shooting with a 1.6 crop body)? I agree in principle that I'd like to keep a sub-f/2 lens handy, but I'd rather not have unused glass lying around...


Thoughts from any and all will be appreciated!

[ShutterbugJohan]

For pretty much the same amount, I can get the100mm 2.8 non-IS macro the MR-14EX ring lite.

Welcome to the forum! I would suggest the 100mm non-IS and the ringlite. It will provide more flexibility than the 100mm IS.

So, how much macro photography is flash-assisted, and for the proportion that is, is a ring lite necessary, or can I get by with a Speedlite, perhaps with an off-camera cord?

It really depends on whether or not you have a ringlite. A ringlite is much more efficient than a speedlite because you don't have to worry about positioning it. (At least, it is better for photographing insects. It would probably not make a difference for photographing flowers on a tripod.)

A secondary quandary was partially suggested by wickerprints - how much duplication will this lens mean for the 85mm 1.8 lens in my kit (I'm shooting with a 1.6 crop body)? I agree in principle that I'd like to keep a sub-f/2 lens handy, but I'd rather not have unused glass lying around...

They are very different... I wouldn't worry about it; if you find that you don't use the 85mm anymore, you could always sell it.