Macro lens help

[beerguy]

After reading, I thing the 100 2.8L IS is the winner because of it hand held use. I think save up for extra 260 euro is not bad idea.

This lens is certainly on my list despite the fact that I already have 3 top quality macro lenses for my Canon system and this wouldn't be to replace any. I haven't tried the IS on this lens, but I think even if it is not as effective in the macro range the IS is still better than not having it. I tend to specialize in macro photography and the IS is the reason I will be getting this lens. IS will not not be a replacement for a tripod or flash in macro photography, because both of these can do things IS cannot, but in some situations it will be an advantage.

My experience so far has shown the IS to be quite effective, up to 1:2. At 1:1, if you can brace yourself well, practice good handholding technique, and shoot in burst mode with AI Servo AF, you can get decent results even at 1:1. There are many variables, including subject movement from wind, but I've been getting very good results. I've also noticed that my keeper rate is getting better the more I shoot.

I was at an orchid show a few weeks back, and all I took was the 7D, 100 IS Macro, and 430EX II w/Stoffen Omnibounce. Out of 314 exposures, I deleted around five images for softness, two of which were completely OOF due to the AF losing the focus point. (At 1:2 or higher, it's very easy to lose your focus point.)

The 100 IS Macro is my second macro lens (I also have the Sigma 150). If I'm working with a tripod, I use the Sigma, but I use the 100 IS if I want to be unencumbered by a tripod. The Sigma still wins for background blur and selective focus, but the 100 IS isn't far behind.

--
Cheers,

bg

'I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.'

• Bjarne Stroustrup, inventor of the C++ programming language

Check out my gallery at http://beerguy.smugmug.com

Canon 7D gallery: http://beerguy.smugmug.com/Other/Canon-7D/

(See profile for the gear collection)

 

[marc1990]

Thanks for all yours input.

It will serve as a macro-cum-portrait-cum-walk-around-cum low-light lens

It think because it will be only tele lens for a while IS a good idea because it makes it more usable in most situations.

Marc

 

[biza43]

It will serve as a macro-cum-portrait-cum-walk-around-cum low-light lens

It think because it will be only tele lens for a while IS a good idea because it makes it more usable in most situations.

Marc

Another +1 vote for the 100 L macro. This lens is so much more flexible than the non-L 100 macro. The IS works very well for normal distance shots, as expected. But it also works well in the close-up range, even at 1:1 it can help a lot. I am now taking macro and close-up shots handheld, that from my past experience would normally require a tripod. It is much more liberating going to a walk in the countryside without a tripod, and still being able to come back with wonderful shots, thanks to the IS.

You can see my gallery of "walk around" photos with this lens here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/galleries/2763288856/albums/april-2010-photos-with-the-canon-100-l-macro-lens/slideshow

And my gallery with the same lens using tripod:

http://forums.dpreview.com/galleries/2763288856/albums/canon-100-mm-f-2-8-is-l-macro-lens/slideshow

 

[SteB]

After reading, I thing the 100 2.8L IS is the winner because of it hand held use. I think save up for extra 260 euro is not bad idea.

This lens is certainly on my list despite the fact that I already have 3 top quality macro lenses for my Canon system and this wouldn't be to replace any. I haven't tried the IS on this lens, but I think even if it is not as effective in the macro range the IS is still better than not having it. I tend to specialize in macro photography and the IS is the reason I will be getting this lens. IS will not not be a replacement for a tripod or flash in macro photography, because both of these can do things IS cannot, but in some situations it will be an advantage.

My experience so far has shown the IS to be quite effective, up to 1:2. At 1:1, if you can brace yourself well, practice good handholding technique, and shoot in burst mode with AI Servo AF, you can get decent results even at 1:1. There are many variables, including subject movement from wind, but I've been getting very good results. I've also noticed that my keeper rate is getting better the more I shoot.

I was at an orchid show a few weeks back, and all I took was the 7D, 100 IS Macro, and 430EX II w/Stoffen Omnibounce. Out of 314 exposures, I deleted around five images for softness, two of which were completely OOF due to the AF losing the focus point. (At 1:2 or higher, it's very easy to lose your focus point.)

The 100 IS Macro is my second macro lens (I also have the Sigma 150). If I'm working with a tripod, I use the Sigma, but I use the 100 IS if I want to be unencumbered by a tripod. The Sigma still wins for background blur and selective focus, but the 100 IS isn't far behind.

Thanks for the experience as it's very useful. The Sigma 150mm is my long macro lens + I have a Sigma 70mm macro for a shorter infinity focusing macro lens and the Canon MP-E 65mm for greater than life-size stuff. What I will be looking for with IS on the 100mm L IS, is on those braced natural light shots with the 150mm or 70mm where the best images are nearly sharp, but there is a tiny bit of camera motion blur - enough to make them not quite sharp. In other words I am looking for IS macro lens to provide, is that tiny little bit of extra stabilization that I can't give. There is a difference between being able to hold a macro lens fairly steady, and holding it like a locked down tripod, which is impossible. I suspect many who think IS is not effective in the macro range are expecting too much of the IS - whereas I would only be expecting it to work in situations where I only get slight motion blur with a none IS macro lens.

 

[craig mick]

I have the Tamron 90 with a 5D. Only because the party I bought the camera from had it. It works great and is spot on. I am really drawn to the Canon 100 though, maybe someday!

 

[Swiss Toni]

I have owned both Canon 100mm macro lenses. Both are very good used as macro lenses. However, I had autofocus problems with the old lens when used as a telephoto. The AF was unreliable and many portrait shots were OOF.

I have had no such autofocus problems with the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro. Used as a telephoto, it's good ... but for portraits I actually prefer the results from my 85mm f/1.8.

For macro work, I don't use either AF or IS. Focusing and DOF are so critical that I find I need to use a tripod and manual focusing with Live View. On a tripod, IS is redundant.

If you want the lens purely for macro use, the old lens will probably suffice. If you also want to use it as a telephoto with reliable AF, and now of course IS, go for the new one.

All comments based on my personal experience, of course.

http://phil.uk.net/photography/canon_100F28LIS.html