joneill809 Wrote:Nice you got the 100 L. How do you like it? Did you compare to the 100 2.8 non-L? Just curious. I have the old copy. Wondering is the IS is worth a move up ...
Haven't compared it to the non L though I did try to find one.
The L having IS + going through lots of comparisons made me go for it in the end.
The IS is honestly almost like a thing of miracles when doing handheld macro.
When I first got it and experimented a bit (or by forgetting to turn IS back on after tripod usage
) you can really see and feel how much it helps you get a steady shot.
combined with 9 vs 8 aperture blades (bokeh!
) and a faster AF ability, my choice was pretty much made.
If you're on some sort of a budget or need to prioritize it and (handheld) macro isnt all that important or mostly use a tripod anyway, i'd probably go with the non-L because when it comes to the TRUE essence (optics) there is not a lot in that price range that seems to be able to beat it.
That being said, i LOVE my 2.8L and would never trade it in for a standard one now that I have it
It pretty much depends on what you will be using it for although the IS definitely warrants a bit of the markup in price.