Macro

[iND]

Since I turn off my IS when using a tripod.

And if I will be using a tripod for most of my macro work.

Does it make sense to buy a macro lens with IS, except for handheld work?

thank you

[Kayaker72]

The 100 mm f/2.8 L IS macro is one of my favorite portrait lenses. Also, I tend to use it for "close up" photography which isn't what I typically think of as macro. In both instances, I find the IS helpful. Granted, I am usually faster than 1/100 sec, but like being able to drop down to 1/60-1/80 sec when needed.

[HDNitehawk]

If your Macro work include bugs and you like crawling around on the ground to get up close natural shots, yes it makes sense to have the IS.
While most of your work might be with tripod, the IS would be handy for all those times that may not be part of "most".
I pre-ordered my 100mm f/2.8 IS and it has always been one of my favorites.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Nearly all of my macro has been hand held -- we like to go to local gardens and tripods aren't allowed. I really like the 100L. I rented the non-IS a while back and my recollection is the 100L is built quite a bit better.

Dave

[conropl]

Nearly all of my macro has been hand held -- we like to go to local gardens and tripods aren't allowed. I really like the 100L. I rented the non-IS a while back and my recollection is the 100L is built quite a bit better.

Dave
That sums it up pretty good. Athough I try to get on a tripod as much as possible, there are places that do not allow them. Sometimes you need the freedom of hand holding.

I also tried out a friend's non IS version and I do like the "L" IS better. One of my favorites and I got a really good price. Really sharp.

[jrw]

In terms of IQ the 100 mm L IS is among the top seats for the focal length, other contenders being the Zeiss 100 and Sigma 105. The IS system also makes it a very reasonable portrait lens for those without a wider 85mm or the funds to add a 135, again non-IS, as well. The gain in versatility is what the IS system is about, being able to take it off the tripod to pursue non-macro work with a high quality prime is a gain for many folks.

[iND]

To further clarify the question.

Early IS lenses did not perform well on tripods.
This included:



EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF300mm f/4L IS USM


When using certain early models of IS lenses with a tripod it was necessary to turn off the IS function. This is because of a phenomenon known as ‘Shake Return’. Shake Return occurs when the IS system tries to correct vibrations to which the system itself contributes. When the IS lens sits on a tripod, the IS detection gyros pick up any tiny vibrations or movement; these might be caused by the tripod being knocked, or the photographer adjusting a camera setting.
The IS system then swings into action to correct that movement. The movement of the IS lens group causes its own minute vibration, which is in turn detected by the movement sensor, which triggers another correction. This ‘feedback loop’ can continue endlessly, resulting in the addition of unwanted blur to images that would be sharper if the IS function was switched off.


Canon addressed the ‘feedback loop’ in later model IS lenses by introducing an algorithm to the IS detection system to automatically recognise when the lens is mounted to a tripod. When these lenses are mounted on a tripod and the shutter button is pressed halfway, the IS system kicks in and the image in the viewfinder can be seen to go through a very slow vertical shift for about one second.
If the shutter button remains depressed halfway the IS system detects the lack of motion and automatically switches into a special mode. In this mode IS detects and corrects for mirror slap and shutter movement at slow speeds, but not for ‘normal’ lens shake. There is no advantage to be gained in turning off the IS function or locking the mirror prior to exposure.

[Jayson]

I have used my 70-200mm f/4L IS on a tripod many times with the IS on and it doesn't mess up the photo. I usually forget to turn it off because I don't notice any problems with the photo. If I do use the 300, you can definitely see an issue so it is a quick reminder to shut off the IS. Regarding you question on the macro, I have the non-L version of the 100mm macro and love it. I use it all the time without a tripod for macro work. I find that being able to move around when chasing things is much more useful than a tripod. I have found ways to keep myself still when I need to. So do you need IS, no. Will it make your life easier...probably. If you are planning on investing in the lens and can afford the extra the IS is worth, then I would get the IS version. They are both built pretty well, but you get weather sealing and IS with the L. I would like it more for the weather sealing since there is a lot of times I am working in wet grass, by water, or when it is snowing.

[HDNitehawk]

Your new explanation really didn't clarify the original question, it gave most of us information we were already aware of.
If the question is will the IS hurt your performance on the tripod, the answer is no. Just turn it off, but it looks like you already know the answer there.
If the question is will the IS help you on the tripod, the answer is no. It is very useful for hand work though.

If you are only shooting on a tripod my recommendation would be the 180mm f/3.5L macro instead of the 100mm L. Bokeh is much nicer.

[Sean Setters]

I shoot from a tripod for macro work about 90% of the time. As such, I saved some $$ and got the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (refurbished, if I remember correctly). If I had intended on using the lens for other things (like portraiture), the L version would have made a lot of sense. As such, I have other lenses that cover that need so the macro lens gets used for macro purposes only.

[Kayaker72]

I had a bad experience where I left the IS on my 24-105 f/4 L two years ago. Of course, I did a thread on the topic (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/showthread.php?t=7601&page=2). I was trying to photograph a favorite waterfall that was completely iced over. Almost all my shots taken from the tripod were ruined where my hand held shots were fine. As I mention in the thread, I contacted Canon who thought the low contrast ice and snow played havoc with the feed back loop you mention on the 24-105 L. But, I was able to less consistently observe an issue at home with an ISO 12233 chart (high contrast). My conclusion was that the 24-105 L's tripod detection system is just not as good as some other lenses I was used too (15-85, etc).

All that said, I do my best to remember to turn the IS off when on a tripod. I don't always, and have not observed a problem other than that time with the ice falls. But that is the easy solution is to turn the IS off.

But, echoing from above, if you want a truly dedicated macro lens that will be almost always shot from a tripod, you wouldn't need IS. But, for walking around your yard or a park, doing portraits, etc. IS is great.

Last comment, but for the few times I have tried "true macro" shots, I've thought 100 mm was a little short. You can only get so close. I can see the 180 mm Macro or the MP-E 65 being better if you want a true dedicated macro lens.

[iND]

Sorry about the confusing butI think the question has evolved.
So to restate the question.

Do you use IS much on a macro.

What I have taken away is:
Movement like panning may have an affect.
There is no problem with leaving IS on for the 100 L IS
But is it worth the extra?
Decision still being made
but leaning towards no IS.

[HDNitehawk]

Sorry about the confusing butI think the question has evolved.
So to restate the question.

Do you use IS much on a macro.

What I have taken away is:
Movement like panning may have an affect.
There is no problem with leaving IS on for the 100 L IS
But is it worth the extra?
Decision still being made
but leaning towards no IS.

The answer is yes I use it, because I shoot hand held often.
In fact that it is the reason I bought the 100mm L macro, is to shoot hand held.
Otherwise if I am shooting off the tripod I would use my 180mm.
Having IS on a macro lens is important enough to me that I pre-ordered the 100mm L macro when it was released years ago.

Macro doesn't mean tripod only, although to some that is the only way they shoot macro.

So you have asked question really only you can answer. Is having the IS to shoot hand held macro worth it for you?

If you are not shooting hand held, then the answer is probably no it is not worth the extra.

[Kayaker72]

At this point, I assume we are comparing the 100 L Macro IS to the 100 non-L non-IS macro.

I own the L, but have never seen anything to make me think the non-L isn't an excellent lens. So, you are debated between two excellent lenses.

But, you are only debating about IS. To me, the IS by itself is probably worth the $300 difference in current price. But a few others:

In favor of the 100 L macro:


Has IS
Weather sealed
Slightly more/better bokeh (see Bryan's review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx))
Comes with lens hood
Is designed to include a tripod ring (but doesn't come with it)


In favor of the 100 non-L macro:

$300
The MTF (http://MTF)is a bit higher at f/2.8 and even on Bryan's ISO Charts (http://ISO), appears a very slight bit sharper (mostly in corners). But, this is close enough, I basically consider them to be an optical wash.


I went L, no regrets, great lens.

[Minerve101]

I own the non-L; have never used the L version of the 100 mm. The optical quality of the non-L is superb.

I have not found much occasion for true macro without a tripod, so that IS is not helpful for that use for me. For general use I more often have the 70-200 mm 2.8 l ii on the camera, so IS also not much advantage.

[conropl]

Sorry about the confusing butI think the question has evolved.
So to restate the question.

Do you use IS much on a macro.

What I have taken away is:
Movement like panning may have an affect.
There is no problem with leaving IS on for the 100 L IS
But is it worth the extra?
Decision still being made
but leaning towards no IS.

As far as leaving IS on when mounted to a tripod... that statement is not necessarily accurate. I know the claim is that the lens has tripod sensing built into the IS system, and it is probably as you described earlier; but in reality it just does not seem to work all that well. I have taken shots on a tripod and noticed the results were coming out OOF. I manually focused at 10X in live view with the same results. Then I noticed the 10X view roaming a little (with the shutter pushed half way). Perhaps I did not leave the button pushed half way long enough, but I do not think so. When I switched IS off, then the results sharpened up. This could be repeated (and was repeated accidentally during other shooting sessions as well). I do not know the cause other than maybe there is enough motion that the IS never really stops. Regardless of the reason, if you want things as sharp as possible when mounted on a tripod, I would turn IS off. With IS on you may get random OOF shots.

Is the "L" worth the cost?

If you are not going outside with it, then you do not need the weather sealing of the "L".
If you are going to be on the tripod all the time, then you do not need the IS.
If you do not need the extra sharpness, then you do not need the the "L".
If you do not mind an extra $300, then splurge.


Pat