If you want the 100 macro for macro (not as an all purpose 100mm lens)
then the old one works fine. The only thing that could have improved
it would have been a tripod collar.
If you want (need?) USM then it has to be the newer one. The AF on
the older lens is slow ... but I almost invariably use manual for
close up / macro anyway: it is more controllable.
As to filters: I guess you are not thinking of macro then? The 100
has a nicely recessed front element that all but does away with the
need for additional shading. Stick a "protect filter" on the end and
you lose that advantage *or* lose working distance with a lens hood.
Bob
> I already have an Elan IIe with a 28-80 and 75-300IS. I'll be
getting my
> wife an Elan 7e kit for Christmas (she has smaller hands) with
probably the
> 28-90 lense. I have checked the Canon website about the 100mm macro
and
> read the chart comparison between it and the old version. I still
can't
> make up my mind whether to go for the old one or the new one. The
filter
> size of 58, USM, new lense grouping are advantages of the new one
but I'm
> not sure if the price difference is worth it. Your thoughts?
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
