300F4isL + ex tubes or 150mm sigma

[GyRob]

i know some of you use the 300 with ex tubes and get great results i have this lens but no tubes not a problem to get some.
As the 300f 4is has IS does anyone think it would be a good way to go for macro type shots hand held Rather than just getting the 150mm sigma or is there a reason to just get the sigma anyway for other benifts .if there is any ?
although i already have the 300f4is cost of the sigma is not a problem .
just not sure whats the best way to go on this one.
Rob

[varanus]

you will get better results and more flexibility with the 150 TBH ive both and tubes and the images with the 300+tubes dont come close to them from the 150 its a hell of a lens

[Broncosaurus]

Seems to me that tubes would not be compatible with IS. Changing the distance between the glass and the sensor would change the degree of correction needed from the IS, Wouldn't it? I'm not an expert on IS, I'm just thinking outloud.

[GyRob]

Thanks for replys and good point about the IS , So the 150 sigma it is then :) i have seen shots with this lens and it's what i will go for.
Rob.

[Lester Wareham]

i know some of you use the 300 with ex tubes and get great results i have this lens but no tubes not a problem to get some.
As the 300f 4is has IS does anyone think it would be a good way to go for macro type shots hand held Rather than just getting the 150mm sigma or is there a reason to just get the sigma anyway for other benifts .if there is any ?
although i already have the 300f4is cost of the sigma is not a problem .
just not sure whats the best way to go on this one.
Rob

Yes I use the 300 f4L IS + tubes very often for dragonflies and damselflies. But these only need small amounts of magnification like 0.3-0.6X.

I can get them with my 100mm macro but with a much lower success rate probably due a lack of stalking skill.

To be honest what I gain with the IS over the 100mm macro I loose with the extra focal length log(300/100)/log(2) = 1.6 stops, the IS gives about 2 stops, possibly less at high magnification.

Another issue of using long lenses for macro is it becomes harder to find your subject in the viewfinder for any given amount of magnification.

Finally, good lens that the 300/4 is, and nice results it does give, it is NOT a macro lens no mater how much Canon write MACRO on the focus scale :). There is nothing to beat a real macro lens for convenience and IQ.

Get a macro lens and get some tubes. You can use the tubes with the 300 when you need the reach and use it with the macro lens when you want a bit more than life size magnification.

[Lester Wareham]

Seems to me that tubes would not be compatible with IS. Changing the distance between the glass and the sensor would change the degree of correction needed from the IS, Wouldn't it? I'm not an expert on IS, I'm just thinking outloud.

No it seems to work. The IS system measures angular displacement and corrects it with angular shifts, not linear so I don't think that tubes will stop it in anyway.

However moving any lens away from the sensor will increase aberations, it is just a question of how much.

There are suggestions that IS does not help at macro distances, i.e. life size, from tests on the Nikon VR macro lens. I suspected this might be the case because at life size and above keeping the plane of focus still is a bigger problem than camera shake. Not to say it would not be handu to have an IS macro at least at magnification like half life size, now if Canon add IS the the 180mm macro....