Macro

[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. 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:

1. Has IS
2. Weather sealed
3. Slightly more/better bokeh (see Bryan's review)
4. Comes with lens hood
5. Is designed to include a tripod ring (but doesn't come with it)

In favor of the 100 non-L macro:

1. $300
2. The MTF is a bit higher at f/2.8 and even on Bryan's ISO Charts, 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