Mark Boyer 
, Mar 21, 2010; 03:50 p.m.
Canon recently supplanted its Canon EF 100mm macro USM lens with the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens. I'd like to know if the newer lens is worth twice the money. I'm interested primarily in image sharpness. I really don't care about the IS since I always use a macro lens on a tripod. But the newer lens is an L series. Are the images it produces materially sharper than those from the older lens? BTW, I'm shooting with a 5D M2.
Thanks in advance for all opinions and advice.
-mark
Gabriel L , Mar 21, 2010; 03:58 p.m.
If you don't care about the IS, don't bother. They have more or less the same IQ. Compare reviews on photozone, the-digital-picture, etc.
Mike Earussi , Mar 21, 2010; 04:50 p.m.
Ron Hartman , Mar 21, 2010; 04:56 p.m.
I just bought the new and sold the old. If there is an improvement in sharpness, it's not much. Out of focus areas seem a bit smoother due to the 9 blade aperture. But I bought it primarily for the IS, to use smaller apertures when hand holding close up shots, and so far that seems to work very well.
Peter J , Mar 21, 2010; 05:26 p.m.
Don't forget you have to buy the lens hood for the non IS version. A third party knockoff can be bought off of eBay for less than $15.
Mark Boyer , Mar 21, 2010; 05:45 p.m.
Peter,
Why is a lens hood required?
-m
Peter J , Mar 21, 2010; 05:52 p.m.
If you use this stellar lens for portraits or any compositions other than macros, the use of an extra cost hood is advisable.
Mark Boyer , Mar 21, 2010; 05:57 p.m.
Peter,
Got it. Thanks. I should have known that. But then again I'd use the lens almost exclusively for macro shooting.
-mark
Eric Merrill , Mar 21, 2010; 06:18 p.m.
Mark:
If you're shooting exclusively on a tripod, I'd go with the 180/3.5. Why? You'll have more working room between the front of the lens and the subject. At 1:1, I'm just a few inches away from subjects with the lens hood on. I rarely take the hood off for any of my lenses, other than to put them on reverse for packing, and that's only if I'm space limited. I prefer them ready to pull out without fiddling.
The 180 comes with a tripod mount. Neither 100 does. Add $150 for the "B" ring for the original 100/2.8 or $190 for the "D" for the 100/2.8L IS. That seems ludicrous to me.
I just bought the 100/2.8L IS. I don't want to use a tripod, so the IS was an important factor in my decision. I thought about getting the tripod ring just in case I do want to use the tripod, but I'm not going to sink 20% of the cost of the lens into a ring.
Eric
JDM von Weinberg 
, Mar 21, 2010; 06:42 p.m.
Eric +1, for the most part.
I have a Tamron 90mm Macro lens and you might want to look at the reviews for it, given that it's very much less expensive and comes with a hood--unlike Canon's cheeseparing ways with non-L glass. I like it, but if you don't need IS (and most macro shooting does need a tripod anyhow), 180mm in either the Canon or Tamron Macro lenses is more flexible if you're working with live and mobile subjects since you can be farther away from the subject. Plants and things tend to stay still so the shorter lengths work fine, but being so close in still restricts your lighting choices more.
