Why should I not buy the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non L) for EOS R?

I have been very happy with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro on my 7D, but after having bought the R, I need a FF replacement.

I have the EF-RF adapter that came bundled with my R and I expect that once Canon makes an RF longish macro lens, it will be eye watering expensive and a severe overmatch for my needs.

The EF 100mm f/2.8 macro (non L) ticks the boxes I could come to think of, and can be had used for roughly the same I paid second hand for my EF-S macro, so what I ask of you is why I should not buy it?

My main interest is studio portraits, but I also like to have a well corrected, plane field lens with negligible chromatic abberation (both axis and radial), distortion, and vignetting, for general, high resolution photography. Nice bokeh (in the original sense of the word) is a plus, but I'm not really into very shallow DoF.

Since most of it's use would be indoors with flash, neither IS nor weather resistance is high on the list.

My only worry is that some users suggests the lens' AF performance is noisy and slow. I enjoy the Eye-AF of the R for portraiture, so will that be an issue and could you suggest alternatives?

Thank you in advance for any input.

I am very happy with mine and it as a plenty fast AF sytem. I even use it for sports sometimes. The only things that tempt me to upgrade to the L lens is the IS and the exterior design (IMO it is a pretty ugly lens haha)

Thank you for taking time to comment, all.

This more or less concludes my lens roadmap for the R. Until I win the lottery - and maybe not even then - the RF 24-105 f/4 is the normal, everyday lens; the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is for portraiture and other things further away.

UWA could be the Samyang AF 18mm f/2.8 if it comes in RF mount, or maybe another MF wide prime. It's a nice-to-have lens rather than a need-to-have in my bag.

And finally the macro I've been asking about here with the EF-RF adapter.

I also have an EF 70-300mm, the "nifty fifty" 50mm f/1.8, and the old EF 35 f/2. All are OK for the use I have for them and not much resale value anyway.

TMJ: You're right, its outer design is a bit outdated, but at my age, who am I to speak?

Nail33: Very assuring about the AF, thanks.

arty H: I was happy with the 60mm on APS-C, so 100mm is close enough, and it gives me another stop over the 24-105 f/4 for portraits until I get the RF 70-200.

1Dx4me wrote:

seems like you are not getting this lens for macro photography that much, so, have you considered a canon EF 85mm f1.8? it is quite a decent lens, fast AF, fast aperture, small, an fantastic for portrait! you can find a mint condition second one for a very decent price, IMO.

I've had that lens on my 7D, but LoCA was quite pronounced and IMHO, it's too short for portraiture on FF. I sold it when I bought my Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 which is a sweet portrait lens on APS-C.

I know many people like it though, so thanks anyway.

IS makes the L optically superior.

Canon's non-IS 100mm f/2.8 macro is a darn nice lens with superb optical characteristics. I use mine for macro work and definitely wish I had opted for the IS version. Since you are shooting flash portraits it isn't such a key factor. Still, I would still opt for IS for extra stability in any situation.

Note: if it doesn't come with a lens hood, buy one for the usual reasons.

more keepers = superior

I have the USM version, and it actually focuses very fast and quiet.  It is only slow when it misses focus and has to hunt from 1x macro to ∞.

I would not pick the macro lens if the primary usage is portrait.  The regular 100mm f/2 lens is twice as fast and almost as good for non-macro work.

...It's great in the studio. If you are using it inside with flash then it's excellent. Optically I think there’s barely anything in it wide open. Once it is stopped down there would be no difference in quality against the L.

If you were outside shooting portraits on a crop body I'd definitely get the 70-200 f4 LIS instead.

Background bokeh on 100 macro is great at macro distances, but a 135 f2 or 70-200 f4 LIS have much smoother bokeh in portrait situations shot at 2.5/4m.

I have the non L 100 macro, I use it for studio macro and close facial crops (often @ f11). I usually manually focus it.

I also use an 85 f1.8 for studio portraits @ f2.8-f4 (due to ca wide open) and the 70-200 F4LIS @ & 135 f2 for portraits outside

I used mine for years! Thoroughly enjoyed it. Only sold it because everyone said the L was much better. I didn’t use it for portraits just Wildlife but often with flash.

It really is a nice lens for the price.