I think my next major purchase is going to be a macro lens and I'm trying to decide between the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens. I would greatly appreciate opinions on this decision, especially from those who have evaluated or used these lenses. I'm also not opposed to other brands but I do tend toward Canon brand because every time I look at reviews when I'm evaluating a purchase, Canon over 3rd party seems to win.
About me:
1. Current equipment: see my signature line
2. Intended use: Primarily for macro work in nature ( Please don't ask me to define nature??? )
3. Likelihood of use for other purposes: Probably fairly low with my current habits. I'm really interested in closeups of plants, bugs, etc but it will probably run a close 3rd behind Landscapes with Wildlife being my first love. So the 100-400mm for wildlife tends to stay on the camera the most.
4. Cost factor: Although I can afford either option, I don't need to spend extra money if it's not a fit.
My current thoughts:
I read reviews. Both lenses seem to be good. The IS lens seems to win from the standpoint of the new (at the time) IS system but that only applies to subjects further away, not so much on macro work which is my main purpose. There's also the better weather/dust protection build which is always a good point but I am pretty careful with my equipment. I just don't know that much about how the difference between an L vs a non L series lens will show up in my photography. Seems if there is difference in glass quality it would show up in closeup work as well. AF, I'm not so sure about since it seems most closeup work would require manual focus.
I'm conflicted!
Thanks for your input!