100mm f2.8 L IS Macro!!

[Benjamin]

A nice macro lens. Probably will kick the a** of the Nikon 105 VR.


But is it a REPLACEMENT of the current 100/2.8 macro though? Or these two lenses will co-exist? I think there will still be people who want to buy a 100/2.8 non-IS macro for $600.

[Daniel Browning]

But is it a REPLACEMENT of the current 100/2.8 macro though? Or these two lenses will co-exist?

The press release says they will coexist.

[Bob]

The 100 mm Micro (non - L) is a very sharp lens wide open and cost about $500.


Question: willthe non L micro be reduced in price? I use Micros lens on tripods most of the time, so IS will be less of a value to me.

[Jon Ruyle]

Oh, sweet. I'm getting this one for sure. I doubt the iq will be better than the old 100 macro, but it doesn't have to be. The IS alone makes it worth it to me.


I know many people say IS is useless for macro, but I don't find that to be so. Often I chase bugs into bushes and have a difficult time putting down a tripod or even a monopod. And when these bugs aren't jumping around, they are usually *very* still. I've been wishing for an IS macro for a long time.

[District_History_Fan]

This has huge potential to be an outstanding addition to Canon's lens lineup. I can't wait for Bryan's review!

[Mark Elberson]

Oh, sweet. I'm getting this one for sure. I doubt the iq will be better than the old 100 macro, but it doesn't have to be. The IS alone makes it worth it to me.


I know many people say IS is useless for macro, but I don't find that to be so. Often I chase bugs into bushes and have a difficult time putting down a tripod or even a monopod. And when these bugs aren't jumping around, they are usually *very* still. I've been wishing for an IS macro for a long time.

<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana;"]I completely agree Jon. I think in the best case scenario you'll be set up with a tripod and maybe a strobeas wellbut lots of the things that we shoot with macro lenses are fickle little creatures Sometimes there's no time to set up a tripod. I've lost several opportunities because what I was hoping to shoot jumped/flew away and I didn't have enough light to get the aperture/shutter speed I need to hand-hold the shot.


<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana;"]I have to wonder though, what would you prefer...the new 100 f/2.8L IS or the old 100 f/2.8 with a Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX? The price is pretty comperable right? I currently own the 100 f/2.8 and love it but I wonder if it would be worth it to me to sell it and upgrade??? Out of pocket would probably be similar if I just bought the Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX. Thoughts???

[crosbyharbison]

The IS would be usefull for hand held portrait work.





The older 100mm macro isn't going anywhere.

[Jon Ruyle]

I have to wonder though, what would you prefer...the new 100 f/2.8L IS or the old 100 f/2.8 with a Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX?

I'd want the new macro, because then I could still buy the flash


But if I had to use either old macro + flash or IS macro with no prospects of flash, I think I would go with old + flash. IS is great, but there are too many times when there isn't enough light, even with IS. Plus there are times when natural lighting isn't what you want- and you can't ask the bug "would you please move over a bit out of the direct sunight, and turn your head this way so you won't be backlit?"


To caveats: I'm basing this on my experience with the twin flash, and I'm assuming the ring flash is similarly useful (though I've never used it). Also, I'm assuming the only big difference between old and new macro is IS, even though obviously I've never used the new macro.

[Chuck Lee]

Also, I'm assuming the only big difference between old and new macro is IS, even though obviously I've never used the new macro.

I'm sort of suprised that the new Macro wasn't f2. The front filter ring is 67mm.Obviously, this lens has a larger front element than the classic 100 f2.8 (12 elements in 8 groups) and different optical build (15 elements in 12 groups)


The price at $300 more is by far the most shocking feature...[:O] My gosh it's actually affordable!!

[Jon Ruyle]

I'm sort of suprised that the new Macro wasn't f2.

That would have been nice.

Obviously, this lens has a larger front element than the classic 100 f2.8 (12 elements in 8 groups) and different optical build (15 elements in 12 groups)

Yup. And nine circular aperture blades! There are other differences, to be sure. But I *guess* only the IS will be inciting to me. We'll see, though. []

The price at $300 more is by far the most shocking feature...[img]/emoticons/emotion-3.gif[/img] My gosh it's actually affordable!!

Wow! I'm shocked by how much the price of the classic macro has gone up. I paid $400 or so new, IIRC.