Besides the price...What is the big difference in the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8 IS usm macro lens and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 usm macro lens ?
1293196
IS (Image Stabilization with this lens gives you two extra stops of light, enabling faster shutter speeds. I have one and I love it.bob
1293197
The IS feature the only real difference. That can be useful depending on the type of photography you're doing. Since it's a prime and not a telephoto lens I personally have never missed having the image stabilization. I do a lot of macro work and use fast shutter speeds.
1293198
The primary difference between the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8L IS USM Macro Lens and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is the IS. This refers to Image Stabilization. The IS in that lens is good to 4-stops (really probably 2 or 3) meaning it can compensate for the shake in the image from a longer exposure. This is a benefit for macro photography as it allows for a longer exposure with a smaller aperture, allowing for a greater depth of field in your image. You can search for macro photos on Google images and you will notice the small depth of field in most of the photos, which frames the subject well when used correctly, but when it is too small, only a small part of the subject will actually be in focus. Secondarily, the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8L IS is a "L" or "Luxury" lens. Although partially a marketing gimmick by Canon, this means that the lens will be higher quality, have at least partial weather sealing, have a better outside lens coating, and generally be of higher build quality. As an owner of the less expensive of the two, and having used both, I would recommend buying the cheaper one if you just want to get started in macro photography, and maybe spend some money on extension tubes or a macro flash. If you are still curious about both these lens, I always recommend renting the lens in question before a purchase or going out and finding them in a photography store. I personally use lensrentals.com for my rentals, but there are several excellent renters on the web.
1293199
The IS on the L lens is like a built in tripod. This lens does not have the IS built in, but I have gotten many a great shot without a tripod or the benefit of IS. The image quality is the same on both lenses.
1293200
Cannon makes 3+ levels of lenses. EFS, EF and L. The EFS is the entry level, the EF the avid photographer and the L the pro level lens. The difference is mostly the optics and build quality. The L series is built for more rigorous every day use and have ultra low dispersion elements that the entry and mid level do not have. Personal opinion, unless you are going to pound with this lens day in and day out, or you have a lot of spare cash, go with the EF. I bought the EF and have been very happy with it so far.
1927313
I don't have a lot of experience using this in videos but I got very good results from the Canon 50mm f1.8 and Canon 70-200mm f4. Down load the Magic Lantern for this camera and research how to put an audio monitor. This will be a good set-up with an addition of an external mic. I don't have a lot of macro lens but I find the Canon 100mm f2.8 (the non IS and not "L") a very good lens. Hope this helps!
1742136
If you want sharper images and faster focusing, you might instead consider getting one of the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM models. The difference in image quality can be quite a startling. Back (WAY back) when I was looking to upgrade my old telephoto lens, someone gave me excellent advice that the difference between the newer telephotos I was considering was relatively small - too small to agonize over - and that if I really wanted to upgrade, I should just bite the bullet and get the L. One of the best pieces of advice on equipment I ever got. Once I tried the L, I never looked back. The one drawback is that the lens will spoil you forever.
2050378
You will have better images if you use the Canon EF 100mm (without IS) Lens with a tripod. Infact, both lenses have the same colour quality at all. The only differences are "IS" and "PRICE". Thanks
1003044
I usually do an immense amount of research before purchasing a product because I despise having useless pieces of equipment around me when I could just do the research and purchase once. I absolutely love my Canon 100mm macro lens and have found no need to purchase the Canon ring flash. Unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket I would advise against purchasing a ring flash, plus if you want to experiment, there are a ton of DIY methods of putting together a ring flash just to see if the effect is worth the purchase of a more expensive unit. Another con of the ring flash is that it uses an inordinate amount of power. I like to carry the minimal amount of equipment as often as possible. I'm out in the desert hiking here and there. It gets hot and I want to use all my energy on the nature around me. I don't want to hear the voice in my head that complains of the extra weight of extra batteries, a bulky ring flash etc. I purchased a dedicated regular flash (model doesn't matter, just the best that you can afford) that I can use as a slave to the pop up flash that's on the camera. I find that with a few tweaks on my part, such as using a piece of paper or reflector to bounce color, darkness or lightness onto the subject can do the job I want just as well. Now git out there and use that 100mm macro! What have you been waiting for?!
233939
The Sigma 880-101 is an older lens and does not have Macro capabilities. Several websites say it's no longer available as new. The Sigma 883-101 is the replacement for the 880-101 and is Macro capable. I just received this lens for Christmas and have put it through it's paces at Zoo Miami.It's a great lens for amateurs who want quality photos.
814300
The 85mm 1.8 would obviously have less depth of field when opened up, which may be useful to throw the background out of focus for portraits. The 3.5 is also macro, great for close focusing for small objects. I got it because it seemed to be a good compromise. I use it both ways. If the macro function were not important to me I probably would have gotten the 1.8 although it's also more money.
1716986
All the reviews that compare this lens with the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I, state there is very little differance betwen the two lenses. I own the Canon 28-70 F/2.8. It is a very sharp lens. I can't see paying the more expensive price for the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I if they perform the same. However, the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II appears to be the better of the three lens. It is more expensive of course. In my opinion, the price differance between the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II doesnt match the small improvement in image quality, unless you are shooting professionally and need the best quality possible. You can't go wrong with the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 for the price, just keep in mind it is an older lens and if it needs repaired, Canon probably won't repair it.
160523
I wasn't aware Sigma made this same lens in a "macro" version? Becarefull believing the discriptions as some "used" products are misrepresented. Any how, macro will allow for a shorter minimum focus distance. Good luck
552636
I had a Canon 50mm 2.5 macro ,it is real reliable, it is an older lens, very sharp also great for portrait work it creates a soft bokeh.
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
1503544
Not sure about ef-s because that lens is made for crop. However, 100f2 should be no problem. Have yet to have a compatibility issue with an EF lens. However... sometimes my 100 macro won't go to f2.8, sticks at 4. My 85 and 50 Let won't go down to f1.2, but it reads f1.3.
13735
If you don't absolutely need macro, go for the 135. I like it way better for portraits. I actually just purchased he 100L macro but it is specifically for newborn details and wedding details. I'll keep my 135 for portraits every time.
2176757
Planning to but canon 70-200 L but confused now after reading the forums and comments. Which one I should buy ?canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM or f2.8 L USL (Non IS)Pls Suggest
1312201
Hi Maria, I'm not sure what you are referring too here...There are many good websites that describe the lens. This is one of my favorite sites:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspxhttp://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_100_2p8_is_usm (this website describes the minimum focus distance at 0.31 m (11.81 inches)I hope this helps.Mark
2024381
I don't have both for a one on one comparison of the image quality, but the 35mm f2.8 macro generally has slightly better ratings. Check out the reviews on the Pentax Forums web site. The main reason I purchased it was for the macro capability. It also has metal vs plastic housing which may or may not be an issue depending on how you use it.
2228078
There are 2 lenses with similar names. The newest is the 18-250 f 3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. The older lens does not have the MACRO in the name. The newest lens has better Macro capabilities and is smaller and lighter. I got the newest lens and I love it. See www.dpreview.com for a review of the lenses.