I've considered the 100 f/2.8 also... the focal length just scare
me especially when you're at 1:1 magnification. Most serious Macro
shooters I've heard talk say to do it on a tripod... and oh, how I
hate the tripod. I'm still some time away from making a final
decision on it, so I'm sure I'll explore it again here when the $$
is there to spend
The 100/2.8 is my first macro lens, and I hate tripods probably as much as you. I ONLY use them when it's so dark I can't get a handheld shot at ISO 1600 wide open. I'd rather suffer noise than tripod setup.
Fortunately I haven't had to use the tripod with the 100/2.8 much at all. I use it for test shots and such, but out in the wild I use it handheld exclusively.
I think you'd find the difference between the 60/2.8 and 100/2.8 isn't that great when it comes to handholding speed. I can handhold my 50/1.8 at 1/80sec, and my 100/2.8 at 1/160sec, or 1/200sec at worst. That's a full stop slower, but I have found that shooting macro I either have plenty of light (ie: 1/500, f/11, ISO200) or nowhere NEAR enough to shoot without flash (ie: 1/100, f/8, ISO1600). In other words, when you're pushing the limit of handholdability (if that's a word) an extra stop isn't all that useful when you can just pop up the flash and shoot whatever you want. It's harder to fudge a macro shot with slow shutter speed than a "normal" shot anyways, cause good macro shots typically have a ton of sharpness.
The cool thing with shooting with flash is that it allows you more creative control, as the more flash you add the darker the background becomes. So if you want a flower suspended in space, shoot 1/1000, f/16, ISO200. Almost all the light will be flash light. If you want a natural looking shot of a flower with maybe some glisten on the petals, set it up so the shot can be taken with near ambient lighting, and use the flash with a tiny bit of power, just to make the water glisten.
Normally I really don't like flash, cause the lighting is often harsh and directional. But with macro it's often not only necessary, but preferable. So I think choosing a 50-60mm macro over a 100mm-ish macro for handholdability isn't going to do much for you. I'd look at focal lengths more for what you're shooting. Bugs and such are great at 100mm, but I sometimes wish I had a wider (say, 50mm) lens for flowers. In fact, some of my favorite macro-ish shots are from my Sigma 20/1.8. It only goes to 1:4, but that's plenty close for its focal length!
(keep in mind that I'm using the built-in flash only... a real macro flash would be much nicer, but the built-in works fine with my 100/2.8.)
I know you're a ways away from deciding, but I hope this helps.
Believe me, I totally hear ya... that's part of the reason it took
me 8 months to finally get the 70-200 f/2.8, even though it lacks
IS... but if I realize I need more stabilizing I figure I can try a
$20 monopod before spending another $1000 on the IS Canon version
-- so far I haven't needed it. The penguin shot in my original
post was at 200mm (or close) 1/80 f/2.8 with an ISO of 800... I
just found something to lean on
I must have poor technique, cause I have to shoot my 70-300 at 1/500sec to avoid shake. And that's when concentrating! I can cheat a BIT on the old "1 over focal length" rule at wide angle (I shoot my 20/1.8 at 1/30 with no problems, but that's about it. Damn this jittery high metabolism!
And I agree with ya on the DO. I'd really considered it for it's
compact nature, but the prices is just crazy in my opinion. I don't
expect it to be cheap, but 1/2 it's price ($600 rather than $1100)
would be a LOT more reasonable IMO... and still not a "cheap" lens
by any stretch.
Yeah, unfortunately it's not going to end up anywhere near $600 now that they jacked up the price of the 70-300IS over the old $400 of the 75-300IS. Canon is really screwing us with new lens prices. Hopefully Sigma starts putting OS in more of their lenses. I'd love to see a 70-200/2.8OS and a 70-300APO OS. And if I ever hear the words "50-500OS" uttered, I'm giong to start writing a check.
