PDA

View Full Version : IS Macro


mxwphoto
16th of March 2007 (Fri), 01:46
Nikon has it... how long will it take Canon to reconfigure IS into its macro line-up?

calicokat
25th of March 2007 (Sun), 01:42
I think IS will find its way into alot of lenses in the future, when..................

silvex
12th of August 2007 (Sun), 02:06
I would prefer a F1.8 100mm L macro than IS , if I IS comes with it great. How about a 200F2.8 macro L ? That would be awsome with a six inches min focus...:)

northernlight
12th of August 2007 (Sun), 02:16
and terribly uncontrasty when used for anything but macro.

I would prefer a F1.8 100mm L macro than IS , if I IS comes with it great. How about a 200F2.8 macro L ? That would be awsome with a six inches min focus...:)

_aravena
21st of September 2007 (Fri), 23:47
I would prefer a F1.8 100mm L macro than IS , if I IS comes with it great. How about a 200F2.8 macro L ? That would be awsome with a six inches min focus...:)

180 not enough?

AirBrontosaurus
23rd of September 2007 (Sun), 23:22
IS on a macro lens is useless unless you're shooting a static object on a good tripod. Bugs and flowers are never still (even a tiny breeze is like a hurricane at macro levels), so to shoot them you need either a really high shutter speed (negating IS), or to use a flash pulse to illuminate the subject (negating IS).

See, IS is only useful within the range of its constraints. If you take a lens, turn the IS on, and then wave it wildly about your head, you aren't going to get a good picture. The same sort of thing happens when you use it at macro distances. The relative changes in position are so great that the IS unit just couldn't keep up with it.

And, an f/1.8 macro lens would be just about as useless, on top of being wildly expensive. The DOF you get at f/1.8 at 1:1 would be literally paper thin. If you shoot macro of anything larger than a pinhead, you'll be stopping the lens down way, way further than f/1.8. And, since macro users hardly (if ever) use AF, the advantage you get from a faster (brighter) lens would again be negated.

About the only real advantage I could see would be the viewfinder would be brighter. But I doubt it would be worth the massive price increase of a 200mm f/2.8 macro lens (Seeing as how the current 180mm f/3.5 lens costs about $1,300 already).

Between then 60mm macro, the 100mm macro, the 180mm macro (for those who really, REALLY need working distance) and the MPE 65mm macro, I think Canon has macro down. The last thing I want is a gimmicky IS unit making these lenses cost even more. IS is amazingly useful for a lot of things... macro isn't one of them.