Canon 100mm IS Macro?

This thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Jv5W

 

discussing Bob Atkins predictions for 2007 Canon SLR introductions brought to

mind the possibility suggested in the title of this thread. To some extent this

is wishful thinking, and I have no basis for claiming that I know anything about

Canon's plans or the DSLR market in general.

 

However, two observations spurred the speculation:

 

1. The current Canon 100mm F2.8 macro is long in the tooth. Although it's a

good lens, it's no better, and possibly slightly less capable, than its

competition (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma), which have the advantage of selling at a

substantial discounts to Canon's price.

 

2. The Nikon Micro 105mm F2.8 VR appears to be selling like hot cakes at a much

higher price, based on offerings at eBay. The fact that so many are being

offered suggests that they are selling well.

 

Putting these two things together along with Canon's pride at pioneering IS in

the DSLR realm suggests the possibility of such an innovation. While Nikon and

Canon lenses don't directly compete, the fact that Nikon seems to have mined a

very profitable lode can not have escaped Canon's attention.

Profitable perhaps, but as Nikon guru Thom Hogan points out in his review of the lens a) optically it is inferior to the earlier non VR lens and b) VR is not effective for macro work:

 

http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

I think this WOULD indeed be a nice addition. I know a lot of people say that IS on macro wouldn't be helpful b/c:

 

1. You should be using a tripod.

2. IS only helps stabilize in 2 dimensions and not front and back and at such close distances and shallow DOF, this could be crucial.

 

But I think for just general handheld macro shooting, IS would be a great feature. The real problem is Canon will probably charge you another 300-500 bucks for it making it a $800 - $1000 and that just makes it not worth it. If you were an avid macro shooter, it might be something but for me... the $500 100 USM is a great macro lens I can use when I need and sometimes doubles as a portrait lens.

 

Here's to seeing what PMA brings!

 

aaron

As Mark said IS/VR is of limited use for macro.

 

I have also seen an alleged Canon quote that prime lenses do not have enough elements to make it easy to implement IS. I take this to mean adding IS is likely to add quite a few elements increasing weight and reducing IQ.

 

I don?t think the 100mm macro is being out performed by the competition, most of the macro lenses out there seem to be good and of a similar level.

 

In any event DOF is the main limiting factor for most macro work, not peak lens sharpness.

IS is not much use at high magnifications. It's a nifty feature at 1:4 to 1:2, where you are probably shooting flowers or bugs or something else where handholding is a must, and you get about a stop out of it, but at higher magnifications it's pretty much useless.

 

I'd rather see a 135/2L IS than a 100/2.8 IS Macro.

Macro lens should be as light as possible, additional IS won't help. 100mm macro USM is very good. Besides IS in macro lens doesn't change anything unless you use it as a short tele. You still must use short exposure and flash to get big depth of field and sharp pictures. (macro is at least 1:1). If there is anything that canon could change in 100mm macro lens then it should go up to 2:1 or 3:1, I don't really need infinity. I even don't need AF, just bigger magnification to not use reversed lens or bellow/extension tubes.

I take macro pictures handhold, 100% sharpness.

I talked with senior Canon technical people at the Photo Expo in NYC last year and discussed the possibility of IS primes.

 

There are certainly technical problems. The IS zooms typically have some sort of internal focus and IS can be achieved by moving around a rear group of lens elements. Primes on the other hand typically don't use internal focus and often don't have a convenient lens group which can be moved to provide IS. So making an IS prime would need a new lens design, probably in most cases with more elements. In general this probably isn't going to yield increased image quality. For shorter focal lenghts (say 50mm and less), there's also the problem of space. The lenses would have to be bigger and longer to squeeze in the IS components.

 

All of this means I'd still like to see an IS Canon body (but I don't expect to).

 

Could they put IS in the 100m macro? My guess is that they could. However the optical performance might suffer and for macro work you should probably be on a tripod anyway and maybe even using manual focus to exactly position the DOF.

Mark U said:

 

"Profitable perhaps, but as Nikon guru Thom Hogan points out in his review of the lens a) optically it is inferior to the earlier non VR lens and b) VR is not effective for macro work"

 

Well that's an alternate hypothesis for why so many of them show up on eBay -- they're being dumped :-) He says that the Nikon documentation notes that VR becomes less effective below the "1/30X" range, and for now that may be the definitive flaw in my suggestion.

 

However, he also says "VR did seem to help improve results even in some moderately close macro work (1:3 or so), so I probably wouldn't turn it off until you're truly pushing the limits of the lens' focus or on a tripod."

 

He does say its "not optically" perfect, with some edge softness compared to its predecessor, but he also emphasizes that its an entirely new lens with no link to that predecessor. Therefore, it could be the slight IQ deterioration is due as much to that as to the VR feature.

 

However, its also possible that the slight deterioration is VR linked -- recall that the early editions of the Canon 300 f4 L IS were less sharp and had more sample variation than its much simpler non-IS predecessor. Likely the source of this slight deterioration was the new design with more than twice as many elements as the old design. Apparently Canon has worked out these kinks thru constant assembly line improvements -- a staple of Japanese manufacturing practice.

 

Overall, thanks for pointing out this fine review -- including his endorsement of the Tamron 90mm macro at the bottom of the page.

 

My comment that the Canon 100 macro might not be quite as good as the best of the competition is based on this (to my mind very thorough and convincing) comparative review:

 

http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

 

While the differences are small, to my eye both the Tamron 90 and 180 seem to be the best of their kind for Canon bodies as measured by IQ. While YMMV, also see Mr. Thom's brief but positive review and endorsement of the Tamron 90 at the bottom of the same article cited by Mark U:

 

http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

 

The fact that both Canon and Nikon have IS/VR primes suggests to me that it is an eminently doable technology with primes -- at least teles. Maybe the putative quote you recall also mentioned something about having a lot of elements and/or a long focal length.

 

"I take macro pictures handhold, 100% sharpness."

 

OK, thanks for sharing that!

Well, from my limited perspective things look like this:

 

there are two ways of shooting macro: one - on a tripod + macro rail + whatever else you want to put on the camera (extension tubes, another lens reversed etc.etc). In that case - IS is of little use, you shoot with MLU and all is fine.

 

But...not all macro subjects want to sit still and wait patiently until you set up the tripod and all other stuff. In those case - one wants to shoot free-hand, and IS/fast AF would be a godsend. I guess that if I was really into it - I would get me a separate outfit for macro, with IS in the camera body. Right now I am doing OK with Canon's 100/2.8 macro USM, but I know how many good pics I missed simply because there was no possibility/time to use tripod - and the pics turned out unsharp.

 

Freezing the subject and/or camera shake with a flash does not always work for various reasons.

Among the prime lenses for which IS might be valuable, the 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8 use IF, as do the EF-S 60/2.8, 100/2.8USM, and 180/3.5 macros. That said, I think Bob's right that most of these would not lend themselves to the addition of IS, with the rather conspicuous exception of the 200/2.8, which looks like a natural candidate. And of course there's the 400/5.6, but that topic has been beaten to death already. The 135/2 would be an interesting challenge, partly because it is a stop faster than any current IS lens and partly because of the user expectation that adding IS would not lose the formidable qualities of that lens.

 

You don't need IS for true macro or extreme close-up work. What it could be valuable for is hand-held medium close-up work on volatile subjects like small alert critters. But you can do that in other ways than with a macro lens, for example put a 70~200/4IS on an EF25 tube - go on, try it, you can even see how flexible a combination it is with the non-IS version. All that Canon need to provide to complete the combination is a Macrolite Adapter 67C, a less demanding tecnical challenge than putting IS in a macro lens!

And I do know how to spell "technical", I just have dyslexic fingers.

Michael I'llnottell , feb 13, 2007; 02:43 p.m.

Macro lens should be as light as possible, additional IS won't help. 100mm macro USM is very good. Besides IS in macro lens doesn't change anything unless you use it as a short tele. You still must use short exposure and flash to get big depth of field and sharp pictures. (macro is at least 1:1). If there is anything that canon could change in 100mm macro lens then it should go up to 2:1 or 3:1, I don't really need infinity. I even don't need AF, just bigger magnification to not use reversed lens or bellow/extension tubes.

 

I think canon has a MP-E 65mm super macro goes up to 5x magnification? Its a MF lens. Is that what you are looking for?

The lens that really most needs IS is the 400/5.6L. It's often used handheld because it's light and it's the longest lens that canon has that lacks IS. It's really a "no brainer" from the point of view of users of that lens, but since there aren't that many of them it could be hard for Canon to get back the design and retooling costs of an entirely new 400/5.6L IS USM.

 

For handheld macro work I use the 70-300/4-5.6IS USM with a closup diopter on it. With a 250D you can get better than 1:1 from it.

"I think canon has a MP-E 65mm super macro goes up to 5x magnification? Its a MF lens. Is that what you are looking for?"

 

Nope! The interesting, reasoned discourse on view is what I hoped for.

Bob Atkins said:

 

"For handheld macro work I use the 70-300/4-5.6IS USM with a closup diopter on it. With a 250D you can get better than 1:1 from it."

 

Me too, except I use an old 500T I got at a great price on eBay -- and also tubes. The real suprise, for a tube diehard like me, is just how good the 2-element close-up lens is!

I tried both canon 250d and a sony close up lens for H1,H2 and H5 on a store on my 70-300 IS USM, the sony close up lens is sharper and I bought it.

 

I get more than 1:1 from it, unfortunately, I dont think the images are as sharp as a real macro lens, therefore I'm still looking for a real macro lens.

 

I think the sigma 150mm macro would be a great buy.

If you are shooting stopped down to get good DOF, diffraction will kill sharpness on any APS-C DSLR if you stop down to f16. So if you're expecting high sharpness at small apertures you're likely to be dissapointed with any macro lens.

 

See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html

If they announced a 180mm/3.5L IS this spring, I'd buy it in a second or 1/500 :)

 

m

BTW: http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

 

This is a very useful review that I often quote myself, as it is the only life size test I have ever seen. However you do need to be careful. You will notice the odd anomaly, like the Canon 100mm suddenly gets soft at f4 and recovers at f5.6. I take this to be an error, there are a few others also. So you need to look at the trend across f-stops.

 

As said IS on the 180mm would be more viable, but I already use the 300 f4 IS + tubes for those sorts of shots.

Bit off the topic but since the opportunity presents itself:

 

Bob Atkins said:

 

"If you are shooting stopped down to get good DOF, diffraction will kill sharpness on any APS-C DSLR if you stop down to f16. So if you're expecting high sharpness at small apertures you're likely to be dissapointed with any macro lens.

 

See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html"

 

When I first read that article I wondered how you got f45 with the 75-300mm. Since mine didn't have that capability, I thought maybe Canon modified one for you, or I envisioned you cutting out precisely scribed annular doughnut rings to stick over the front element. Being fairly dumb I was afraid to ask because I didn't want to show how dumb I was. Now that I've gotten over that, I speculate you used a teleconverter -- but I don't know for sure.

 

Thanks

1. Contrary to the popular belief and to Thom Hogan, IS is very effective in 1:1. See my post in http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J8yj

 

2. I had the 100/2.8 USM and sold it because I don't shoot so much macro and it's AF speed is inferior to the 85/1.8 and 70-200 variants.

 

3. I consider buying a K10D and a macro lens or a D40 + 105/2.8 VR if Canon will not make a macro lens with IS.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

>> If you are shooting stopped down to get good DOF, diffraction will kill sharpness on any APS-C DSLR if you stop down to f16.

 

I tried my 70-200/2.8 IS + Nikon 6T + Kenko 36mm on my 1D just a few days ago. Diffraction killed the sharpness at f/13 :-(

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Yakim Peled said:

 

1. "Contrary to the popular belief and to Thom Hogan, IS is very effective in 1:1. See my post in http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J8yj"

 

2. "I tried my 70-200/2.8 IS + Nikon 6T + Kenko 36mm on my 1D just a few days ago. Diffraction killed the sharpness at f/13 :-("

 

Re: #2. Congrats on getting the Nikon close-ups that I recall you were seeking when I last participated here!

 

Re: #1. I agree that using an IS zoom for close-ups can be effective, and I interpret Bob Atkins' remark to be in the same vein. BTW, the shots you linked to at:

 

http://d-spot.co.il/forum/index.php?showtopic=83660 ,

 

possibly using the Nikon 6T on your 70-200 f2.8 IS are sharp and intriguing: Even if I can't tell what they are, they are visually compelling! However, on the third one, I wonder how it would have been if the left side (foreground?) were sharp and the right side (background?) out of focus; or if more of the subject were in focus?

"When I first read that article I wondered how you got f45 with the 75-300mm. Since mine didn't have that capability".

 

I thought it did, but only at 300mm. I think it's f32 at 75mm. See http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=58. I think all the 75-300 lenses and the new 70-300 have f32 at the short end and f45 at the long end, but you realy don't want to stop down that far if you want sharpness. You can see what happens from the images at http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html which show the 75-300 sharpness at various apertures at closest focus at 300mm. f45 is not impressive! f32 is just about acceptable if you need the extra DOF, but f16 is best