Canon 100mm Macro L vs. Non-L

[randomname]

Right now I have the canon 100mm 2.8L, the Tamron 17-50 2.8, and a couple of other vintage primes. I love the L lens to death, and use it a lot for handheld work, but I recently got a really nice shoulder mount and that seems to take away alot of the benefits that the IS gave me. Right now I'm considering downgrading to the EF version and either buying the 70-200L, a super fast 85mm prime, or also selling the 17-50, and picking up the 28-70L and an older ultra-wide lens.

I guess my question is, is there much of a difference in IQ between the two 100mm lenses, are there things I'm not thinking about that I'll really miss with the L? And if you do reccomend downgrading, which of the options I listed above sounds the smartest (I'm willing to spend a few hundred extra to get the best setup)?

 

[saneproductions]

The standard 100L and Non-L are very close in IQ. I am sure that you are getting IS benefit even with a nice shoulder rig. It sounds like you have a perfect kit. I would not sell anything, only add more later. Especially don't sell the 17-50.