Just got my EF 100/2.8L macro IS USM

It's my birthday today.


The lens arrived just a few hours earlier, so I haven't had the time to do some real shots. It's my first true 1:1 macro lens, so I'm still getting used to the macro working distance. I thought I'd give some of my initial impressions before posting some sample shots.


The box includes a lens hood, the lens, and a pouch. There is no tripod ring included.


The lens is a good balance of weight on the 5D Mark II. It feels a bit like the EF 24-105/4L IS in terms of weight. For better or for worse, overall build quality feels similar as well, maybe not quite as "rugged-feeling." The exterior is definitely predominantly plastic.


The focus ring is smooth and turns nearly a full 180 degrees. As expected, the gearing is such that most of the ring is reserved for focusing from the MFD of 30cm @ 1:1, to around 48cm @ 1:3, and the distance scale reflects this.


The focus limiter has three settings. From left to right, they are "Full," "0.5m - infinity," and "0.3 - 0.5m". AF speed is not blazing fast regardless of the limiter setting, but it is a macro lens after all. It simply takes time to physically move the internal components the required distance. What helps, though, is if you turn the ring manually to get in the ballpark, then let AF do the rest. FTM focus is a feature of this lens. Focusing is entirely internal--neither the front nor rear elements move.


Weather sealing is completed by using a front filter. A rubber gasket helps seal the rear.


The diaphragm has 9 slightly curved blades.


Hybrid image stabilization is reasonably quiet and performs okay, but I need to do more testing before I make a final verdict. The lens makes a soft clunking noise when gently shaken.


The rear of the lens does not have the additional contacts for the Canon EF Extenders. As I do not yet own any such extenders I cannot determine whether this lens is compatible. However, it appears that the rear of the lens is designed such that it is physically possible to fit the extender to the lens.


Overall, my initial impression of the EF 100/2.8L macro IS is that it is nicely designed, but that Canon certainly chose to make light weight a priority. It is not a lens I would want to drop or knock around, L build notwithstanding. As I have yet to put it through its paces in terms of optical quality, there's not much more I can say at this point. I hope to have more commentary soon.


Oh, there is one more thing. The date code on my copy is UX08, which means it was manufactured in August 2009. Can't see why Canon couldn't have shipped it to me back then, instead of making me wait :D

Thanks for posting! I look forward to seeing some pictures.

Five minutes already, were's the pictures!! ;)

LOL


Okay, so I set up a little test with some mineralogical samples I'd collected years ago. The results were pretty impressive. See for yourself.


Here we have a piece of crystalline bismuth, approximately 1.5" x 1.2" x 1". Following image is uncropped, resized to 12.5% from the original 5616x3744 capture on 5D2. Magnification was 1:1, set up by manual focus, and moving the object into the depth of field. Rocks (and coins) are the easiest macro subjects in the world to shoot! [:D]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0035.JPG[/img]


This is a 100% crop of the same image. In this image, the distance between the two "points" from the upper left to the middle right is about 2.4mm.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0035c.JPG[/img]


EXIF information shows 1s @ ISO 100 @ f/8, +1 EV.


The funny thing I'm beginning to realize about shooting at such high magnification is that there aren't really very many objects that actually have enough fine detail at these reproduction ratios, except for things like insects. I tried shooting some printed text and nothing appeared sharp because, well, printed text isn't sharp when you look at it that closely. Does anyone have any suggestions on what I could photograph with this crazy lens? I thought I'd want the MP-E 65mm at some point, but I think that for now, the EF 100/2.8L IS is going to be more than enough magnification for the foreseeable future! Can anyone advise on how to test this lens for sharpness at or near MM/MWD?

A few notes I want to add.


By far the easiest way to shoot 1:1 with this lens is if you keep it in MF, and just move the camera back and forth. Using AF is cumbersome because between the time you get a lock and you press the shutter release, you might not be focused exactly where you thought you were. Even the IS doesn't completely overcome this. I kept the IS on, while mounting the camera on a tripod and using mirror lockup. I'm not sure if this had a detrimental effect on the image, but I suspect not.


The IS doesn't seem to make much difference when you are really, really close. I found that at normal shooting distances, the IS worked fairly well, but I still have to conduct more tests to determine whether or not it truly is an improvement over previous generations. I'm really not all that convinced of its performance, to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

LOL

---

Glad you liked my little joke! Looks great too me, just have fun with your new toy!!

The funny thing I'm beginning to realize about shooting at such high magnification is that there aren't really very many objects that actually have enough fine detail at these reproduction ratios, except for things like insects.


Almost everything takes on a different and interesting appeal at 1:1.


Dew, cracked paint, bark textures, feathers, matchbox cars, yarn, money, rust, flowers, brick, tools, machines, coral, fish and bugs. There are wonderful shapes, textures, and images in almost anything, but, there is not only the technical learning curve of using a macro lens, one must learn to see the shot within. The best way is to study the work of others and experiment. It's a lot of fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

The funny thing I'm beginning to realize about shooting at such high magnification is that there aren't really very many objects that actually have enough fine detail at these reproduction ratios, except for things like insects.

---

Then try insects on coins.........LOL


http://chucklee.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p1022697427-4.jpg


Canon EOS 5D, EF 100 f2.8 Macro, <span class="nowrap"]f/11 @ <span class="nowrap"]100 mm, <span class="nowrap"]10s, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 100, <span class="nowrap"]No Flash (Tripod)


or just coins: I think they have enough detail when magnified.


http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u...s/IMG_5296.jpg


Canon EOS 40D, EF 100 f2.8 Macro plus Tamron 1.4X TC, f14 @ 140mm (220m Eq.), 1/250, ISO 320 (Handheld) Proof that an extender (Tamron) can be used with a Canon lens that doesn't work with a Canon TC.


I usemanual focus when down to 1:2- 1.4:1 magnification. I try to use a tripod or flash (no E-TTL ambient mix)


When taking macro shots outdoors under handheld conditionsIS may have afforded me a f8 aperture or cleaner 1600 ISO to have taken this one: Possibly even better, maybe f8 at ISO 1600 at 1/30.


http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u...G_5090_800.jpg


Canon EOS 40D, EF 100 f2.8 Macro, f4 @ 100mm 1/125, ISO 3200 (Handheld)


Sorry for the crappy resizing, I still haven't got everything in one place yet.


Try This: Set the focus on manual and closest distance. Try for at least a f8-f16 aperture. Find your subject through the viewfinder. That in itself is sometimes difficult to do. Sometimes you have to start away (like 12-18 inches) then move in as you continue to focus manually until you are at 1:1. Then move in and out to control focus. (this is a very fine movement) take many frames as you do this. Try with IS on and IS off and let us know what you think. Handheld macro (1:1) keeper rate 1 out of 10.


BTW...thanks for posting all this info. Sometimes people spend money on something then talk sunshine to justify the expense. Ireally respectyour objective, honest approach to this. This is really good stuff.

Thanks for your thoughts on the new lens.


What AF mode are you using for these shots? Do you suffer the same AF problems if you're in AI Servo mode? I would hope that in this mode, the camera focus would compensate for the backwards-forwards movement that make for out-of-focus images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Then try insects on coins.........LOL

---

ROFLMAO


I have just the thing for that, and I forgot about it until you reminded me! I have a few preserved insect specimens lying around somewhere...dead bugs are also easy to shoot [:D]

Quote:

---

Canon EOS 5D, EF 100 f2.8 Macro, <span class="nowrap"]f/11 @ <span class="nowrap"]100 mm, <span class="nowrap"]10s, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 100, <span class="nowrap"]No Flash (Tripod)


or just coins: I think they have enough detail when magnified.

---

Indeed! I will have to rethink what I expect to see at these magnifications...

Quote:

---

Canon EOS 40D, EF 100 f2.8 Macro plus Tamron 1.4X TC, f14 @ 140mm (220m Eq.), 1/250, ISO 320 (Handheld) Proof that an extender (Tamron) can be used with a Canon lens that doesn't work with a Canon TC.

---

Hmm,.... does this mean I'm better off buying a non-Canon TC, then? I was contemplating the EF 1.4x II, but now I'm not so sure. The only lens I own that is officially supported is the 70-200/2.8L IS. I think I'll wait a while longer before deciding.

Quote:

---

Try This: Set the focus on manual and closest distance. Try for at least a f8-f16 aperture. Find your subject through the viewfinder. That in itself is sometimes difficult to do. Sometimes you have to start away (like 12-18 inches) then move in as you continue to focus manually until you are at 1:1. Then move in and out to control focus. (this is a very fine movement) take many frames as you do this. Try with IS on and IS off and let us know what you think. Handheld macro (1:1) keeper rate 1 out of 10.

---

Okay so here's my result. No new pics right now, but I'll post more as soon as I dig up my dead bugs in a box. First observation: the IS definitely works. It makes a very noticeable difference handheld from around 1/15 - 1/200s @ 1:1. Mind you, it's not always tack sharp at 1/15+IS, but is "acceptably sharp" much more frequently than if the IS is off. In fact, I would pretty much not bother shooting slower than 1/100 without IS. I also discovered (remember, I'm new to macro) that how you hold the camera is super important. Traditionally I've placed my left hand near the base of the lens. With macro I get much better results when I hold the lens at the front. Bracing is important too, but I can't always have something to rest my hands upon.


Slower than 1/15 - 1/20s, I would not attempt to shoot handheld, IS or not. The IS benefit is clearly a function of the working distance. At *best* I can squeak out maybe 2 stops near 1:1, but at "normal" subject distances, I can get almost 4 stops. Another thing I noticed is that the IS doesn't dampen the camera shake in the viewfinder as well as I had hoped; it's still quite shaky and that makes handheld composition and focus tricky, with or without tripod. Clearly I have to improve my shooting technique.


In fact, I would say that the 1/f shutter speed rule breaks down at 1:1. I think it should be more like 1/((1+m)*f), where m = magnification and f is the focal length. With IS off, I was still getting blurry shots @ 1/100s handheld. Then again, maybe I just need to lay off the triple lattes with adderall chaser. (j/k)


My verdict on IS @ 1:1? It DOES help. Can I say whether the "hybrid" component of the IS makes a difference? No, because there's no way for me to test that...I'd need the ability to selectively enable/disable it, which I'm unable to do. Bottom line--it's a boost but don't expect it to perform miracles. It's not as stupefyingly amazing as Canon's marketing department has made it out to be. So, sorry, you're still going to have to give up that extra morning cup of coffee. LOL

Quote:

---

BTW...thanks for posting all this info. Sometimes people spend money on something then talk sunshine to justify the expense. Ireally respectyour objective, honest approach to this. This is really good stuff.

---

You're most welcome. I figure this is my chance to make a fair assessment of a new design. Although I've never owned the EF 100/2.8 macro, based on the images I've seen taken by other, more accomplished macrophotographers, and comparing them with my own naive results, I'd say the vast majority of owners of the old 100/2.8 don't need to trade up. For them, I think the main benefit would be the realization of somewhat easier shooting. They've already found ways to get sharp images @ 1:1, so the IS really is only icing on the cake. The 100/2.8L macro IS, in my view, is geared toward people who are beginning with macro and are willing/able to spend the extra $400 over the non-IS version to get every bit of help they can--like me! And I think Canon knew this, because they did not discontinue the older model. The new model is a tech showcase lens--designed to show off their lens R&amp;D and gauge its future applicability toward the broader EF range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

The 100/2.8L macro IS, in my view, is geared toward people who are beginning with macro and are willing/able to spend the extra $400 over the non-IS version to get every bit of help they can--like me! And I think Canon knew this, because they did not discontinue the older model. The new model is a tech showcase lens--designed to show off their lens R&amp;D and gauge its future applicability toward the broader EF range.

---

Nice summary.

You are probably right. I borrowed the 100 f2.8 L IS USM from my favorite camera shop to try yesterday. With both lenses on a tripod, there isn't any difference in sharpness to the old non-IS version. So unless you want to go out chasing little bugs, butterflies, dragonflys, etc....the old non-IS version is a better deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius

You are probably right. I borrowed the 100 f2.8 L IS USM from my favorite camera shop to try yesterday. With both lenses on a tripod, there isn't any difference in sharpness to the old non-IS version. So unless you want to go out chasing little bugs, butterflies, dragonflys, etc....the old non-IS version is a better deal.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I just want to clarify this because I don't want to be later misconstrued as saying something I didn't say or mean to say. As I mentioned earlier, I have never actually used the EF 100/2.8 macro, so I can't make any claims as to whether the EF 100/2.8L macro IS actually is any sharper. What I can say is that I have seen photos taken by others with the older lens, and they look pretty good to me, in the sense that it appears good macro technique is more of a determinant in resultant sharpness near 1:1 than any differences in published MTF. As for "normal" working distances, I have even less data since in such cases it's less obvious to pick out if an image was taken with the 100/2.8. A portrait taken with this lens and posted online is often hard to distinguish from a portrait taken with the 100/2, 85/1.8, 135/2L, 85/1.2L, etc. without looking at the EXIF--unless that portrait happens to be of an ant! LOL


Also, the 100/2.8L macro IS appears to be at least as sharp as the 100/2.8 macro. That much I am able to see from the results of my own (admittedly naive) test shots. Optically, it's a very solid performer under all conditions, which should come as no surprise. I would love to see Bryan do a test chart series as I don't trust myself to do it right.


As to value, I leave that decision up to the individual. It's a personal thing, because there isn't really a single objective utility function for the value of a lens across all consumers. I'm content to state my own observations about the lens I did buy, and how I believe Canon has positioned it relative to their other offerings.


Now back to shooting dead bugs in boxes. [:D]

Okay, so here are some more images.


Here we have an unidentified mineral sample believed to be of Hungarian or Eastern European origin, approximately 1.5" long by 0.5" diameter. Handheld, 1/25s @ ISO 2500 @ f/11, +2/3 EV, 1:1 magnification, resized 15% of original. Any assistance in identifying this specimen would be much appreciated. It is brittle, with low density.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0013.JPG[/img]


Next, we have a specimen of Lamprima adolphinae. Tripod, 1.3s @ ISO 100 @ f/11, +2/3 EV, 1:1 magnification, resized 21.4% of original.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0019.JPG[/img]


Same as above, 100% crop.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0019c.JPG[/img]


I suppose there's a pattern here...I like to collect iridescent objects [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I suppose there's a pattern here...I like to collect iridescent objects

---

Nice.... you can see the lens segments.


I have a feeling you're beginning to really like that Macro lens.

damn, i had almost convinced myself to start saving for some PocketWizards, but i want this lens. ah well it all academic right now as i cant afford either lol.

I got mine two weeks earlier than my photostore told me. I was thrilled!


When I got the call that they received two (2!) I said "Where do I sign?"


I had the chance today to feed my young Boa Constrictor and took some macro shots. I could take very upclose pics at about 1/60 to 1/80 sec. Though I cannot decide for anyone else if the markup for the IS is it worth for you. Handling is good.
AF performance with my 5DII is *really* good - very fast I must say. It rarely hunts for AF.


Judging by Bryan's ISO Crops, the new IS is a *tad* sharper at all apertures.


What I did notice though was, that the lens hood is pretty long. I can't say if Canon was just over-achieving - I have no comparison. But at 1:1 ratio, the lens hood is just inches away from the subject. Lens-hood shading *will* really easily occur. What annoys me most though is, that you cannot put the lens cover on with the lens hood installed. Removing it is possible but fiddly...





All in all, I'm quite positively surprised!

Oh, I hadn't noticed that Bryan already did the test charts. To my eyes, I see the new IS has noticeably better contrast and is sharper in the center at all apertures. But there appears to be more chromatic aberration in the edges and corners. I am guessing this has to do with the addition of an IS group, which is partially (but not completely) compensated for by the use of UD glass.


As for the lens hood, I left it in the box. It is really deep and I don't see much reason to use it at present. You could always get a pinch-type lens cap...for the life of me I can't understand why Canon doesn't make these.


I do like this lens very much, but mainly because I am rapidly becoming addicted to macro photography in general.... It's like discovering a first love.

Exactly! Like some sort of love. Macro is really really fun!



I hadn't noticed the additional CA, but color&amp;contrast look really good to me.



Thanks for the hint about the pinch-type lens caps. I really dig those - my brother in-law (Nikon D700) gets envious glances for this...

Okay let's play the "guess the macro" game. Here's a photo I took, 1:1, 50% crop. Can you guess what it is? [:D] It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out...I don't want to make it impossible!


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0034c.JPG[/img]

Looks like granite from your countertop, but I don't know the species. Am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Looks like granite from your countertop, but I don't know the species. Am I right?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

A very good guess, but while you are correct in that it is a stone, it's not granite.... Not igneous. Think mineral [:D]

OK, you got me beat.

looks like Marble, although i can not tell from exactly what. if i was to guess i would say based on the damage that it was a rolling pin, pestle &amp; Mortar or portable work surface.

Okay, maybe it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be? It's a piece of polished jasper, specifically the "leopard skin" type. Jasper is a silicate mineral, as opposed to granite, which is feldspathic. Pretty, huh? Average "spot" size in this sample ranges from 1-4 mm.


I think I need to pick something a little more commonly known... LOL sorry folks. [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I think I need to pick something a little more commonly known... LOL sorry folks.

---

LOL.....LOL......LOL.......LOL.......LOL....... Oh Stop.... Please Stop...LOL........LOL......


We're photogs, not mineralologists, if that's even a word.... [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I think I need to pick something a little more commonly known... LOL sorry folks.

---

LOL.....LOL......LOL.......LOL.......LOL....... Oh Stop.... Please Stop...LOL........LOL......


We're photogs, not mineralologists, if that's even a word.... [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]

---

ROFL!, damn its so obvious thats what it was... was my second choice. ah well [H]

Okay here's my second try at stumping you guys. I think I finally found a subject that people should recognize, but isn't a dead giveaway.


100% crop:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0022c.JPG[/img]

Come on, nobody's going to take a guess? [:P]

razor blade

yeah agreed

Nope, not a razor blade. [A]


But yes it is made of metal! [:D]

can opener

a lens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

a lens?

---

Jon wins! [:D] It's a closeup of the EF lens mount. I don't know what all the white specks are...dust, I suppose!


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/answer.jpg[/img]

Hi!





I just happen to also own the new EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM.


I have nothing but praise for it!





I used to own the non-L macro, i.e. the EF 100 f/2.8 macro USM before and I sold it for the new IS lens. My reason was this: My sister-in-law has a big spider in her garden. I discovered it and had to take some macro-shots from it with the non-IS macro. I didn't have a tripod and the minimum aperture I could get was was 9 @ 1/100s. I was happy until I looked at the shots on my computer a day later: I was not able to get both the body and the head of the spider in focus at the same time. I have some shots of the spider head in focus, and some with its body, but I have no shot of the whole spider being sharp. UNFORTUNATELY! I just was not able to achieve the necessary time/aperture settings necessary for this shot without a tripod!


The new IS system promises to achieve a 2-stop advantage handheld, i.e. I would have been able to get to f/18 with a longer exposure time which would have done the job!


This is the main reason that made me sell my non-IS macro and buy the IS version. Handheld macro. Because you don't always have a tripod at hands!





The new 4-stop IS feels great! The stabilisation is noticeably better than on my EF 24-105 which has a 3-stop IS. It works unbelievably well in the non-macro world. I cannot sufficiently comment on the effectiveness of the IS in the macro realm so
far, because I have not had enough time to thoroughly test it. The advantage of the lateral IS reduces to 2 stops, but this still is good. Looking through the viefinder reveals a nicely stable image, but I don't know how much the angular component and how much the lateral component contributes to the stability of the image. Lets assume that Canon knew why they invented a lateral stabilisation!





I did some test shots with the new macro, of course, but most were only uninteresting orchids... My main use so far has been portraits. The EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM is EXCELLENT for this use. The AF-system is ROCKET-FAST! Faster, by far, than my EF 24-105, and that is something. The fastest focusing lens I own. A pleasure to use! Also the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM is RAZOR-SHARP wide open! Perfect Bokeh, the ideal lens for portraits!





While it is true that a full focus-swing from .3m to inifinity takes some time (physically moving a lens group), when in portrait mode (limter set from 0.5m to infinity) a swing from 0.5m to infinity is extremely fast and extremely accurate on my 5D! For macro work on a tripod I usually operate the lens in MF mode. AF mode is not so useful for insects (bees, flies, dragonflies) approaching a flower, because the shot needs to be framed when the insect is NOT in place, so the AF has nothing to acquire. MF is the only option then. I focus to where I expect the bee to be and press the shutter when it is about to land.





Image quality of the old EF 100 f/2.8 USM has already been great, also for portraits wide open, but I have to say that the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM is noticeably better wide open! The fact that this lens costs less than twice what the non-IS costs makes this decision easy, if you can afford it. If not, the old EF 100 f/2.8 USM is also a hell-of-a-lens!





Let me comment on build quality: It is metal all over. Rock-solid. No plastic feeling at all, except, of course, for the huge rubber focusing ring. It feels great! I just wonder why Canon made the filter a 67mm one, because the front lens is small, not bigger than on the non-IS macro, which is a 58mm one. Perhaps they just did not want a step at the front lens. A Hama step-down converter should work well, I guess.





In summary: I have nothing but praise for the new EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro USM. It is well worth the upgrade from the already great EF 100 f/2.8 macro USM. And I am not paid by Canon, unfortunately.





kind regards,


Sulla

Sulla,




While I also have the new IS Macro lens, I happened to see some apparent mistakes in your very enthusiastic review.





1) The EF 24-105 F4 IS L lens has 4-stop IS, not 3 as you mentioned. IMHO, the AF speed on the macro is quick, but I wouldn't say quicker than that of the 24-105.


The IS works OK in Macro realm, but of course, works more effectively at longer distances. It can give you an advantage but it won't do wonders.





2) The new IS Macro is indeed a little sharper wide open - but just a little. The biggest difference is IMHO in the corner sharpness. Check out Bryan's ISO charts to see yourself.





3) Build quality is definitely NOT metal all over. While the EF mount is indeed metal, the rest of the outside of the lens is plastic. High quality plastic, but not metal.





4) I dunno if the 400 to 500 bucks surcharge for the weather sealing and IS is worth it for everyone. IS is definitely lovely, but at 400 bucks, it is quite a step up. Image quality wise you won't see much change, the old one was pretty amazing for the money already.





I don't wanna talk bad about the Macro - I own it too and I love it.


I just don't want wrong claims wandering around the web. Happens too often!

Hi Thomas!


I took my information on the IS-rating of the EF 24-105 from Bryans review of the lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx) where he states it as a 3-stop one. Also, Canon itself rates it as being 3-stops (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...;modelid=11924). The EF 100 IS Macro viewfinder image feels considerably more steady (at f=infinity).


I just rechecked focus speed. I set both lenses manually to 0.5m and then focussed on a distant object, and I have to say the macro is quicker (the zoom zoomed to 100mm). I did the test on a EOS5D and also on my ancient EOS5. Other bodies may behave differently (the macro has a 2.8 aperture while the 24-105 is only f/4), after all the electronics is in the body. I have not done AI-SERVO tests yet, so I can't say which one is more accurate with moving objects, though.


I also went back and checked the barrel. I knocked on it. Plastic, indeed. Upon close inspection I found a moulding mark, plastic, for sure. All right. It IS plastic. Sorry for that.


I also tried to take a macro shot or two and to intentionally shake my camera horizontally only, and the image stabilizer could nicely correct for that. Not a great amount, but nicely. I performed the same horizontal shake with the 24-105, and could see a clear difference, in so far as this lenses IS does not, or hardly, correct for horizontal shake. The behaviour of the image in the viewfinder clearly "feels" differently with both stabilizers. The hybrid-IS definitely does something for macro shooting!


For portrait work, besides ISO-charts, I find the new IS macro sharper and more contrasty wide open at f/2.8 when compared to the non-IS macro. (But I don't have pictures of the same subject with both lenses side-by-side, I'm afraid.)


Despite it being plastic, I still have nothing but praise for it. I find it to be well worth the upgrade. If you always carry a tripod, the old non-IS EF 100 macro indeed is a wonderful lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

I dunno if the 400 to 500 bucks surcharge for the weather sealing and IS is worth it for everyone. IS is definitely lovely, but at 400 bucks, it is quite a step up. Image quality wise you won't see much change, the old one was pretty amazing for the money already.

---

I owned the non-IS Macro for a couple of years and found it's IQto be exceptional for portrait and macro work. For Macro work howeverit pretty much required a tripod. That was a major drawback as far as I am concerned.


I sold it and have had the IS version for several weeks now. The IQ is just as good if not better but the real advantage is the ability to take Macro shots hand held even in average light. At least for this particular lens and for this particular application [macro], the IS alone is worth the extra bucks as it makes the lens far more useful.

Heya,


I need to apologize, my post might have sounded a little pissy. I'm really sorry for coming across weird. I also have the Macro and love it ;)


Sulla: Very sorry on the IS-topic. I thought I somewhere read it's a three-stop IS. Sorry man!


On the AF - in portrait work the 24-105 seems to acquire focus more reliably than the Macro on the 5DII I have. Particularly when the image is way out of focus, the AF has a hard time finding it's way - times where the 24-105 is quick in getting there.


Hybrid-IS is great, yeah :) It can allow me to take pics in lighting conditions where the non-IS one wouldn't make it at all. IS buys me some stops of light. I can't tell yet how many stops at full magnification I am gaining though.


The new IS Macro definitely IS more contrasty.



Great lens all in all :) I'd also don't regret shelling out more $$$ for IS!