Is stabilization necessary for a macro lens?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
68shooter Forum Member • Posts: 72
Is stabilization necessary for a macro lens?

I love macro photography. Looking at a lot of my shots on my (pre-Sony) crop sensor camera (Canon 77D), I notice that on a cloudy (but not dreary) day, I might expect to see shutter speeds of 1/25 second or slower, using ISO 200 and f5.6 even.

I mostly always use a tripod or monopod. My success rate is pretty good. At f/9, I see speeds of 1/3 sec at ISO 100, which would mean in order to get some depth of field even at f/9, my shutter speed would be 1/6 sec at ISO 200, 1/12 sec at ISO 400, 1/24 sec at ISO 800, etc. So, is the Sony OSS in the 90mm macro even a practical matter to consider if I would like to occasionally shoot handheld (in burst mode) for macro? I most always use manual focus, btw.

I'm asking because I think the 105 Sigma would do the job for me for macro work. I am definitely going to use the macro for portraits as well, so that is my stumbling block. But even using the macro for portrait shots is going to take me into slow shutter speed territory when wanting to do handheld portraits. If I use an aperture of say, f4, my shutter speed is going to be in the neighborhood of 1/60 sec if I use ISO 200.

So, does it really matter? Do I expect to see myself using ISO 400-1600 on my A73 to get decent shutter speeds FOR PORTRAIT WORK? For insect-type macro at smaller apertures, is the OSS in the 90mm even going to matter? I don't like going too high with ISO for macro work. I am leaning toward the Sony over the Sigma for portraiture for autofocus speed and OSS, but am not sure OSS would help me that much at 90mm.

Can somebody offer any thoughts about this?

Thank you so much.

ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow