Canon EF 100mm F 2.8 USM L series vs. the non-L series version

[lcollar]

Anybody have a educated opinion concerning these two lenses underwater?

I'm particularly curious if the L series lens would improve focus speed and image quality. Above water the L series lens is reportedly superior to the lesser cost lens. However, underwater, the differences might not be as great.

I currently have the non-L series lens and frankly have trouble getting it to lock focus at times even using a Sola 600 on the highest setting. The macro image also isn't as crisp as I would hope it might be.

So the question of the day is which has the better focus speed and image quality underwater and is the difference significant enough to justify the cost difference?

 

[ben_wilson3301]

I have both lenses that I have used on land. The L series is WAY, WAY faster focus. And usually more accurate focus. I would imagine this would be compounded underwater but having never tried it I couldn't say for sure. Its somewhat sharper with a ton more saturation. Hope this helps.

 

[OkiMike]

I only have the L but tried the non-L at a store before purchase. No comparison. Topside, the grip, feel, and IS for handheld make it an even easier decision.

 

[matt215]

I have both. The L series is better. Better quality glass.

 

[lcollar]

Thanks for all your replys. It seems the L series is the winner here. Somehow I thought that might be the case. Above water certainly but didn't know how that translated to below.