Why no macro lens with IS?

[John K]

With the number of people who shoot macro hand held (myself included) why isn't Canon making an IS macro lens? It could even help people who use a tripod...

--
My gallery: http://dalantech.smugmug.com

 

[juan bobo]

Sorry to answer with a question, but why no L series macro? (Still, I can't see anything out performing my 100mm 2.8 macro- it rocks.)
--
Photography is not a threat to National Security.

 

[beru]

I am actually wondering why Nikon makes one. Isn't the real difficulty with macro to not move the focal plane too much? At least I have this problem. How would IS help with this?

--
Regards,
Beru



http://www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=83135

 

[stephenmelvin]

With the number of people who shoot macro hand held (myself
included) why isn't Canon making an IS macro lens? It could even
help people who use a tripod...

Actually, at macro ranges, IS could hurt more than it helps. IS compensates for camera shake, which generally is an 'up/down' motion. But at macro ranges, camera shake is less important than translation, which is a 'back and forth' motion. There's no way to compensate for this.

In fact, Nikon's new VR macro disengages the VR unit when focusing under 3 meters.

"The VRII function minimizes camera shake by offering the equivalent of a shutter speed 4 stops faster at near infinity to 3m (1/30x reproduction ratio) shooting."

 

[stephenmelvin]

Sorry to answer with a question, but why no L series macro? (Still,
I can't see anything out performing my 100mm 2.8 macro- it rocks.)

There's probably little room for improvement. Macros tend to be the sharpest lenses in any maker's lineup.

--
Photography is not a threat to National Security.

 

[John K]

So under 3 meters the VR shuts down -interesting! Maybe it can't respond fast enough to compensate for movement once the subject distance falls below 3 meters...

--
My gallery: http://dalantech.smugmug.com

 

[John K]

... 180mm F3.5 L --even has a red ring...

--
My gallery: http://dalantech.smugmug.com

 

[John K]

...with the low dispersion glass...

--
My gallery: http://dalantech.smugmug.com

 

[Green_Thark]

70 - 300 DO IS with a Canon 500D close up lens. Not quite true macro, seems to work out about 0.7 (1:1.42), closest focus is around 400mm and the IS still seems to work.

Couple of examples at link below, both at f8 1/20 sec 300mm, they are quickies and not very clear, but do illustrate the IS is working.
Only alteration is to WB.

The 250D would give better than 1:1 and I can't see any reason that the IS wouldnt work with that as well.

http://www.paulsdata.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

 

[Andy Sobanski]

They have it..some day Canon......
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2160#
--
In an ocean of absurdity, fins still are needed
Regards,
Andy
http://www.pbase.com/sobax

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Green,

70 - 300 DO IS with a Canon 500D close up lens. Not quite true
macro . . .

What would "true macro" be?

Best regards,

Doug

Visit The Pumpkin, a library of my technical articles on photography, optics, and other topics:

http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin

'Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.'

 

[Lee Jay]

With the number of people who shoot macro hand held (myself
included) why isn't Canon making an IS macro lens? It could even
help people who use a tripod...

Actually, at macro ranges, IS could hurt more than it helps. IS
compensates for camera shake, which generally is an 'up/down'
motion.

Actually IS compensates for angular motion in the up-down (pitch) and left-right (yaw) direction.

But at macro ranges, camera shake is less important than
translation, which is a 'back and forth' motion.

And the translation left-right and up-down. This is a change in position rather than a change in angle.

There's no way to
compensate for this.

Well there is but not will current IS lenses. You'd need a 2-axis shift lens with IS actuators on the shift axes. Boy, that'd cost a bundle!

In fact, Nikon's new VR macro disengages the VR unit when focusing
under 3 meters.

"The VRII function minimizes camera shake by offering the
equivalent of a shutter speed 4 stops faster at near infinity to 3m
(1/30x reproduction ratio) shooting."

Indeed.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

They have it..some day Canon......
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2160#

An IS macro lens but not a lens that has IS assisted macro.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Green_Thark]

Hi Doug,

the purists will say 1:1 or better!

For myself, buying a dedicated macro would have been pointless because I could never be bothered to cart it round with me.
Besides its handy to have IS with your macro lol

Regards

Paul

 

[Vibrio]

rather than take photos. why does canon not make a 100-400mm f2.8 IS for under £1500
--
http://www.quantum-capture.co.uk/qc/qc.html

 

[Aussie bloke]

just curious, why do you let a simple polite question from someone annoy you? the question was clearly in the subject line, yet you clicked on the thread - you could have ignored it, but the subject clearly interested you enough to read further.

and the question was not so obvous - stephenmelvin and ljfinger gave some very useful information about the mechanics of IS which I didn't know, so I for one have learned something from this thread.

sometimes there are marketing reasons for a lens not being made, other times there is a technical reason. I thought it was a fair question.

Cheers.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Paul,

Hi Doug,

the purists will say 1:1 or better!

Yes, pity that the Canon EF 50 mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens doesn't come close to qualifying (with its maximum magnifcation of 0.5)!

Actually, Canon, in their glossary, says that macrophotography is photography at a magnfication of OVER1:1 [emphasis added] .

So that lets out their 100 mm and 180 mm "macro" lenses, too!

I was just pulling you leg to remind the readers that I think it is really silly to hold to such an arbitrary definition of what is macrophotography.

Note that with an 8" x 10" view camera, a magnfication of 1:1 would make it suitable for the macrophotography of an entire ladies' high-heeled shoe!

Of course the true scientific definition of macrophotragraphy is the photography of objects large enought to not require photography through a microscope! It is only by convention that the term became limited in our use to "objects that are still pretty small"!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Vibrio]

not annoyed just think its a waste of this forum if all people do is post what if this, whydid canon not do that. get out take pics and talk about photography and what canon had not what they don't have.
--
http://www.quantum-capture.co.uk/qc/qc.html

 

[Jeff Varszegi]

I never understood this particular thing last time the issue came up, either. I understand that IS as implemented is not useful for macros... I just still don't understand why.

I understand the translation is not helped, but is it worthless to do away with the angular displacement at macro ranges, and why-- or does the IS interfere with macros somehow, overcompensating and such? (Okay, so that's a few questions rolled into one; sorry.)

 

[Rich Dykmans]

I just love these "holier then thou" type lectures where someone says "why aren't you out taking more pictures?". The people out taking pictures aren't trolling around on these threads! ;-)

rather than take photos. why does canon not make a 100-400mm f2.8
IS for under £1500
--
http://www.quantum-capture.co.uk/qc/qc.html