Instruction: Extract information from the supporting document to answer the given question.

Input:
Question: What is the difference between this lens and using a canon IS telephoto lens?
Document: A wonderful lens! I re-purchased this lens after selling it to upgrade to the 100 MK II IS.The cost difference and average reviews of the newer upgrade didn't merit another $600.This 100 f/2.8 works fine and it costs are reasonable!
Handheld macro shots ARE possible but I personally find that there are not as sharp as when I use I tripod. There is a noticeable difference in sharpness... this lens can be insanely sharp!Secondly, the autofocus does not work that great for macro mode. This is not a bad thing. I usually turn off the autofocus and focus manually using the screen rather than the viewfinder and then use the digital magnification capabilities on my T3i to really sharpen the parts of the photo I want to focus on.
Plus, this lens has full-time manual focus, so you can fine-tune the focus yourself.In conclusion, this is a great macro lens if you want wonderful quality, but don't mind lacking the IS of the L lens. Images, both macro and regular telephoto, are crisp and sharp. The addition of USM and inner focusing make it worth buying this lens compared to competitor lenses.
This is a general facet of macro lenses, so you'll probably find yourself using manual focus 90% of the time or more. The manual focus on this lens is quite excellent though, and responds well to fine adjustments. It's also quite easy for me to handhold it, as long as I have a decent amount of light or pop up the flash.With all that being said, this is a nice lens to grab after you have a decent telephoto lens, if you like photographing small things.
This lens 100mm Macro F2.8 is really crisp, sharp, excellent images. Have a 50mm canon lens and see a major difference (the extra distance is nice as well). Would recommend highly, Canon, you did it again.
As you can see lots of the people talk about how great this lens is and some compare it with the Canon 100mm L series,  I have both of them and honestly after almost 300 shots from each in the same situation, I still can't see anything different between this two the only difference is the price, now chose which one is better for you. this lens is awesome without a
The 60/2.8 actually gives you same optical quality as the 100/2.8 - it is superb both for macros and for portraits (espacially if you have an external flash). Consider getting the 60/2.8 if you have a crop-body camera over this lens. For full-frame users, if you are using a tripod then this lens definitely works over more expensive L version otherwise the f2.8L IS will be a better option over this.
I own a Canon Rebel Xsi. I mostly had just done amateur photography but now my job entails lots of jewelry photography. I had pushed my kit lens to its limit. I figured this macro lens would only be good for our extremely small items, but I have found it works great for the larger pieces as well. The clarity has been greatly increased and the colors are just amazing. Pictures zoomed at 100% remain crisp with hardly any grain. The difference is night and day from what I used before.
This lens isn't just the best Macro Canon has to offer, it can also be used for a great telephoto. I would recommend this to anyone who needs to round out there collection with a fantastic macro lens!
And it is suited for number of purpose. Consider it as utility telephoto prime lens.Good Starter Lens for Macro Photography, and easiest to master compared to other Macro solution offered at the Canon EF system.Con:Hood or Pouch are not included, and you will need them!
Answer: This lens is for close up pictures at relatively short distances.  The other is a telephoto lens for taking close ups of larger items at longer distances.