Canon 100mm IS Macro?

[brucecyr]

Bob Atkins said:

 

"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."

 

What a royal ass I am! The 70-300 sure does do f45 at 300mm -- the 75-300 too probably. My apologies for so blatantly inflicting my stupidity on Bob and everyone else.

[yakim_peled1]

Explanation:

 

The pictures in http://d-spot.co.il/forum/index.php?showtopic=83660 were taken with the 100/2.8 macro.

 

The pictures in http://d-spot.co.il/forum/index.php?showtopic=102687 were taken with 70-200/2.8 IS + 6T. Taken at night. Hence the very shallow DoF.

 

The pictures in http://d-spot.co.il/forum/index.php?showtopic=102712 were taken with 70-200/2.8 IS + 6T (top) and 70-200/2.8 IS + 6T + Kenko 36mm. Taken at early morning in the shade. Hence the shallow DoF.

 

 

I am simply aching for a 100/2.8 IS or 180/3.5 IS as I find the use of the 6T and extension tubes very cumbersome. Unfortunately, if you want IS + macro, you simply have no other choice.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[lester_wareham]

Yes IS has a place in close up work (less than 1:1), as I have said I use the 300/4 IS with tubes.

 

It is the case that the physics of IS is simply that there are diminishing returns as magnification increases.

 

I am sure IS macro lenses will sell like hot cakes. I would even be interested if the IQ at 1:1 and above is not degraded by the extra elements. That is the trick I think.

 

However, I predict a raft of complaints and whinging about how shots at high magnification and slow shutter speeds are not sharp. Or perhaps I am giving the average consumer too much credit.