Decisions on whether to get a EF100 2.8 or the L version

[jukernow]

Hiya,

Been looking to get a macro lens, but am stumped as to which one to go for . I was looking at the EF100 L version macro but am not sure if it worth spending the extra when the reviews I have read of the non L version all seem to be good. It would be used on a full frame camera. Just wondered if anyone has any advice as to which is the best to get. Cheers.

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by jukernow

which is the best to get

The best from all accounts is the IS as it gives you two more stops. Of pretty near equal quality is the non-IS, the Sigma 105mm or the Tamron 90mm, the latter two well rated lenses and much cheaper.

Personally, I take a lot of macros and use the Sigma 105 and 150 as well as the Canon MPE 65mm (now that's a real macro lens!) - but I could see a use for the Canon 100 IS (and am considering getting one!)

[nick_gray]

I was going through a similar dilemma as you are, but decided to save up a bit more and go for the L series with image stabilisation. I'm pleased I did, not only is it a superb lens, I now use it quite a bit as a prime lens and I really appreciate the IS when shooting handheld.

BTW. There is a mini review of the Sigma 105 Macro in the Nov issue of DCM, where it won best on test and best for Canon (although it was compared to the non-IS 100mm and not the L series).

Regards

Nick

[thefonz78]

Check out http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Len...a-Lens-Ratings

They have tested most lenses on the market. You can compare them all.

[jukernow]

Thanks for the replies! I think I'll keep saving for the mo and maybe might hire one of each and try them out before buying.