Hello.

I've just had a job come in for hundreds upon hundreds of gunmetal plumbing components (glamorous, I know). The one lens I'm short of is a 100mm macro for things I like to shoot - the need has never really arose to buy it as I've already got the focal length covered a couple of different ways (inc the 24-105 with 'macro' capability). There's plenty of budget there, so the actual cost isn't a massive issue, but that said, I'm not wanting to waste money I don't need to spend.

On a purely geek out level, does any one have practical experience of the upgrade from the older 2.8 to the new 2.0L as I'm going to take the opportunity to get one of them. I've heard nothing but good about the 2.8, but it'd be interesting if anyone has done it, if they felt it was a worthwhile upgrade

thanks in advance

K

So there is no confusion, the new L macro is 2.8, not 2.0. The 100 f2 is not an L lens nor is it a macro lens.

I have the F2 and love it, as a low light portrait lens.  When I need to shoot product I've rented the 2.8

It's the addition of IS to the 100mm f/2.8 macro that make this an L worth looking at.

The 1st gen 100mm f/2.8 macro is a good lens, but not an L.

I upgraded from the 100mm f/2.8 to the 100mm f/2.8L with IS.

Old one was sharp.  New one seems sharper, and with the IS it gets a lot more use.  I use it for portraits and even full body studio work.

With macro shots of non-moving things, you might just want to get the older one and a tripod.