Canon 100mm IS Macro???

[Leorooster]

Is Canon going to have a macro lens with IS? It will be fantastic if Canon would come up something like 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro, just like the one Nikon has (click here (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022103nikonafsvr105.asp)). Have shot macros without a tripod for the past year, I really wish Canon would have something like this. Any thoughts?

[gasrocks]

I do more than 1/2 of my macro work using my Canon 300/4 L IS lens, 25mm ext tube, maybe the 1.4x, monopod, iso 400 (neat image later.) Great for dragonflies and butterflies at a working distance of 3' to 6' so, I'd say there is a Canon IS macro lens.

[Leorooster]

For little fast moving critters, this will not cut it (at least for me :( ), unfortunately. In those situations, handholding is almost a must. The down side of it of course is a lower ratio of keepers. I think it also depends on personal preference and style. I shoot macros 99.9% of the times without a tripod, so IS would be ideal for me. IS is useless with a tripod anyway :)

[Jarrad]

For little fast moving critters, this will not cut it (at least for me :( ), unfortunately. In those situations, handholding is almost a must. The down side of it of course is a lower ratio of keepers. I think it also depends on personal preference and style. I shoot macros 99.9% of the times without a tripod, so IS would be ideal for me. IS is useless with a tripod anyway :)


Image stabilization isn't going to help you with 'little fast moving critters' either. :)

[Leorooster]

Image stabilization isn't going to help you with 'little fast moving critters' either. :)

That's correct, but with fast moving critters, I will be forced to take the shots without a tripod (i.e., handholding); and IS will help reducing camera shake in these situations :)

[J Rabin]

Actually, Nikon's whole new system with the on-baord wireless commander combined with the VR macro lens will be the killer, not just the lens. In macro photography, we all use flash to stop subject motion blur, not shutter speed alone, and having on board wireless commander is just killer. The VR is for the camera and its holder, not for subject blur.

And even Nikon's sucky hi ISO performance is no detriment, because no one in their right mind shoots macro over ISO 400.

I am fully invested in Canon, especially for the ergonomics of the rear quick control wheel. But, as a macro person, I can tell you Nikon will win over many macro shooters when you have a wireless commander on board with a VR macro lens for handheld work.

As an avid Canon user, who used to be a frustrated Nikon user, after being a happy Olympus owner in the 70s, I am happy Nikon will press Canon to move and compete! That's good for all of us.

Jack

[Leorooster]

Actually, Nikon's whole new system with the on-baord wireless commander combined with the VR macro lens will be the killer, not just the lens. In macro photography, we all use flash to stop subject motion blur, not shutter speed alone, and having on board wireless commander is just killer. The VR is for the camera and its holder, not for subject blur.

And even Nikon's sucky hi ISO performance is no detriment, because no one in their right mind shoots macro over ISO 400.

I am fully invested in Canon, especially for the ergonomics of the rear quick control wheel. But, as a macro person, I can tell you Nikon will win over many macro shooters when you have a wireless commander on board with a VR macro lens for handheld work.

As an avid Canon user, who used to be a frustrated Nikon user, after being a happy Olympus owner in the 70s, I am happy Nikon will press Canon to move and compete! That's good for all of us.

Jack

Exactly! That's why I just purchased a D200. I'm planning on getting the new Nikkor 105mm VR Micro as well.

[Lester Wareham]

Is Canon going to have a macro lens with IS? It will be fantastic if Canon would come up something like 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro, just like the one Nikon has (click here (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022103nikonafsvr105.asp)). Have shot macros without a tripod for the past year, I really wish Canon would have something like this. Any thoughts?

This question comes up now and again. IS could be of some use although I do have some reservations for real macro work:

1) IS is know to reduce the lens sharpness, you can't afford this with a macro lens.
2) IS (as currently marketed) will only stabilise camera movement in the sensor plane, not orthogonal to the sensor plane. My experience is the main difficulty is keep the plane of focus steady when handholding, IS will be no help here.
3) IS only helps with ambient light (duh). While it is nice to be able to use ambient light, when shooting critters at 1:1 and above you are almost always going to want to use flash for DOF. For flowers etc you can use a tripod and don't need the IS.
4) Even if you use the IS often the subject has more movement than the camera due to the slightest breeze. The IS will not help here.

So my conclusion is it may be a bit of a gimmick that is not that much help in real world macro and may even result in sub-standard lens performance.

Remember, the lens resolution at infinity will be reduced by a factor (M+1) where M is the magnification (it is probably a bit more complicated than that for internal focusing but that is aproximatly right for OLE focussing assuming similar near and far performance). So the most important thing is lens sharpness, particularly in the centre. Previous ISed lenses do seem to be a little less sharp based on Canon’s own MTF data and published tests.

However I echo one of the earlier comments about the on-board wireless control of flash from Nikon and their new wireless macro twin flash, they have really rubbed Canon's nose in it here.

Another nice lens Nikon have is a macro T&S lens. However as Canon owner I can always use Nikon lenses on an adaptor if I don't mind manual operation.

[Leorooster]

#1, #2 and #4 are all great points. #3 is relevant when the main source of light is flash. I found that the colors are much better when using ambient light with flash as a fill (i.e., keep the flash at the minimum). So for me, I would try to use as much as ambient light as possible; hence, #3 is not as relevant to me. All in all if IS can cut down one of the negative effect (i.e., blurr images due to hand shake), it's already well worth it, given (as you mentioned) that the sharpness of the images would not suffer too much. Thanks for your great input :)

BTW, I've also heard so much about that macro T&S lens :)

Thanks!