New Canon 100mm vs. Old Canon 100mm

I am thinking about upgrading from the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM Lens to the new Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM Lens. My question to those that have used both...Is it worth it?

I would like focusing to be a little quicker especially in low light situation and the pictures sharper. I am using a canon 5d mark II, and use a macromate sometimes.

any feedback would be appreciated.

thanks

I am thinking about upgrading from the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM Lens to the new Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM Lens. My question to those that have used both...Is it worth it?

 

I would like focusing to be a little quicker especially in low light situation and the pictures sharper. I am using a canon 5d mark II, and use a macromate sometimes.

 

any feedback would be appreciated.

 

thanks

I have played extensively with both. The new lens is sharper on land and focuses a tiny bit faster than the old one. Underwater in the pool, it is really hard to tell the two apart except for the price. Adding the macromate will further negate any of the differences between the two. Are you saying that your current version isn't sharp. That is surprising since the old 100 is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes and the new one is a bit (but only a bit) sharper on the 5DII.

Bill

I'll add that the IS adds 1 stop of "caffeine compensation", which in most cases can be just dealt with by bumping up the ISO or flash power for macro. If solely for underwater use @ high f numbers, the advantages shrink for spending an added $5-600 to buy a new L.

I upgraded to the IS because I also use it to shoot video and portraits wide open, the new L is quite a bit sharper and the IS works up to 4 stops with outside of 1:1 shooting, which makes a significant difference.

The 5D2 AF is just slower when there is less light and contrast, and it's designed so as not to scalp 1D series sales.