Just got my EF 100/2.8L macro IS USM

[wickerprints]

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 []

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...

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.

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

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.

[Chuck Lee]

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.

[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.

[wickerprints]

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. []