Canon macro lens with IS?

[anesh]

As yet Canon has no 1:1 macro lenses with IS. Cameras with CCD based

stabilizers such as the Sony A100 or Pentax could use a Tamron 90mm macro lens

with body's stabilzer engaged. I wonder whether such a setup is an attractive

proposition for a macro shooter. Is IS in macro photography of any value or is

Canon right to have ignored it?

[mark u]

In lens stabilisation is of little practical use for macro work. In fact, it becomes progressively less useful at magnifications above 1:30. See Thom Hogan's review of the 105mm f/2.8 VR Nikkor here:

 

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

 

In body stabilisation works a little better, because it actually compensates for movements that are parallel to the sensor plane (and in the case of the Pentax K10D, rotations in the plane of the sensor) which become rather more important sources of camera shake at macro magnifications (angular camera shake dominates at longer focal lengths). However, it has limitations - and Konica Minolta advised that Anti-Shake was not effective with their 1-3x macro lens, because the magnification of movement becomes greater than the mechanism can handle.

[ronhartman]

I had a Sony A100 and 90mm Tamro macro. The image stabilization did help. I didn't shoot much 1:1, but at 1:2 and further, after I braced myself, it was able to get some sharp pictures, maybe adding the equivalent of one or two shutter speeds.

 

I believe the Pop Photo review of the Nikon macro said that the effectiveness of the lens stabilization was reduced at closed distances.

[jacob_brown]

A few years ago in the Canon booth at a Photo Plus Expo exhibit, a rep was showing off Canon's unique MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro with attached ringflash.

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/mp-e-65

 

He didn't need IS, or even use a tripod. He rested his elbows on the table containing the still life subject, handheld the camera and depressed the shutter -- when the 10D sensed the image was in focus it shot, and the flash kept the shutter at a high enough speed so that everything was in focus. Output went to a nearby TV screen. If the composition wasn't good enough the rep just took another shot. No IS needed. Pretty impressive demo.

 

That said, Canon really needs to release DSLR bodies with IS. I want image stabilized wide angle, and so far only Sony/Minolta and Pentax are offering that courtesy of their IS-enhanced bodies.

[ymages]

i really would love to se a EF 100mm macro L IS

[lester_wareham]

As noted IS is of limited use for close-up and macro work as it only stabilizes two degrees of freedom. This is OK at magnifications below about 1/30 but above this the other four degrees of freedom become more significant, it may still provide a small benefit at 0.25-0.5X but is virtually zero after that.

 

I know there has been some disappointment with the Nikon IS macro lens for this reason. I guess Canon have not bothered because of the technical drawbacks and the penalty of a more complex design often takes the edge of lens sharpness, a big issue for macro work.

 

However, I would not be surprised if they introduced one anyway if there was a lot of demand. This is rather like in-body IS which is almost useless when you need it most at the telephoto end.

[mark_chappell]

<I>I want image stabilized wide angle, and so far only Sony/Minolta and Pentax are offering

that courtesy of their IS-enhanced bodies.</i><P>

 

Canon makes a 24-105 IS, a 28-135 IS, a 28-300 IS, and a 17-55 IS (EF-S mount), and

maybe others (I can't remember them all). Not as

handy as in-body stabilization for wides, but you can get stabilized wideangles for Canon.

[mark_petrie]

IS... Macro? Buy a tripod if you want to do macro.

[j_smith6]

<i>erick boileau, May 18, 2007; 10:35 a.m.

<br>

i really would love to se a EF 100mm macro L IS

</i>

 

<br><br>

 

I really would love to see sealed Canon EF 105mm f/2.8 macro with 3:1 and focusing to 3-4 meters if not infinity. IS? That would help to take sharper pictures in low-light conditions f.e. on concerts.

[j_smith6]

Of course if the lens was much heavier and/or would have more elements then I wouldn't buy an IS version. The EF 100mm macro USM is really good but I think it should be 105 not 100mm (because of flash - speedlites use 80mm flash zoom when you use 100mm lens - the difference in guide number beetwen 80 and 105mm is quite big). First of all the new version (if canon made one) should be sealed.

 

IS - do I really need it? No. :) At least not for macro shots.

[jacob_brown]

<b>I want image stabilized wide angle, and so far only Sony/Minolta and Pentax are offering that courtesy of their IS-enhanced bodies.</b>

<p>

 

<i>Canon makes a 24-105 IS, a 28-135 IS, a 28-300 IS, and a 17-55 IS (EF-S mount), and maybe others (I can't remember them all). Not as handy as in-body stabilization for wides, but you can get stabilized wideangles for Canon. </i> <p>

 

I want to shoot image-stabilized with my 35mm f/1.4. Canon doesn't permit that. A Pentax K10D with a Sigma 30mm would do the trick nicely and affordably. Canon has to step up and accept that they'll lose some IS lens sales to offer real functionality to their cameras.