Canon 100mm Macro, IS or not?

Hippo_MC

Hippo_MC

Messages
554
Name
Ray
Edit My Images
Yes
Is there anybody that has converted from the original Canon 100mm Macro to the new IS version?

I know the new version is L class and a slightly better build, but is it really worth £300+ more when the original gets very good reviews?

I have also read reviews on the the new version which states that the IS becomes less applicable the closer you get to 1X magnification?

I'm just wondering if it is worth it for the impromptu piccy of a bug or spider?

Would appreciate people's opinions.

Cheers
 
I've got a similar dilemma with the Nikon equivalent. I had the non IS canon and really couldn't fault it. I'm 99.9% sure I'm going to save the cash :)
 
I've had both and would say the 100L is the better lens, IQ is slightly better, build quality is slightly better, Af speed is much better and the IS is a bonus plus it includes a lens hood and case.

From Onestop:

100L f2.8 IS is £680
100 f2.8 is £400 plus Hood from Mifsuds ET67 £40

Difference of £240.

So are the features and the Red Line worth the extra to you? only you can decide that!
 
Paul-H said:
Hi

The simple answer is

As most macro shots should be taken with the camera on a TriPod then IS is pointless as it should be turned off if using a TriPod.

The more complicated answer is how do you use yours?
Click to expand...

its quite difficult to shoot live things if not impossible while your cameras mounted on a tripod 95% of my macro is handheld, still not convinced that IS makes a big difference but i haven't tried the new lens yet so :shrug:
 
Paul-H said:
....
As most macro shots should be taken with the camera on a TriPod
Click to expand...

I would suspect that the opposite is true....most macro shots are hand held.


I've got both the original and the IS version and both do the job very well at 1:1
Tests with the IS version show me that it has better resolution than the non-IS when used at wider apertures....not really an issue for most macro type stuff as the DoF becomes a little too thin (unless you're doing more creative shots).

Putting 54mm of tubes behind the lenses to increase magnification to around 2x starts to show where the improvements have been made. The new IS version appears to have outstripped the test chart I use....the first lens to do so (of the ones I've owned).

The IS becomes less effective as you approach 1:1 and, although there is still some benefit to be had, I suspect than Canon's bumph is really pushing the point.

As a medium telephoto it's fine but doesn't hold up against the 85/1.2 or 135/2 and the smaller aperture does cut down on some of the creative possibilities.

All IMHO

Bob
 
I think it depends on how you shoot macro. The big thing about the new lens is the Hybrid IS (a technical innovation looking for an application? :thinking: ) which should allow you to shoot hand held more often.

But if you shoot with ring flash, as you often have to in order to get sufficient depth of field, then you are going to be at middle to high f/numbers anyway where both lenses are extremely sharp, and the IS only becomes beneficial for steadying the image for framing, which is a valuable asset nonetheless.

On the other hand, the new lens is spectacularly sharp from the reviews I've read, plus all the other L benefits like weather sealing and build, it's got a red ring on it and is generally a very lovely thing of gorgeousness.

Since neither lens is cheap, personally I'd try and stretch to the new L IS because it is better in every way and the IS will be useful from time to time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top