Macro with IS?

[bbrovold]

Could they and would they make a macro with IS? Not knowing the pitfalls of lens design, is it something that could be done and would it be of any benefit?
Just thought I would throw that out there. My history in photography went back to the old Canon F1's with motor drives and big 85 1.2 glass so I am not up on the IS thing.

[xarqi]

I wondered this too, but got convinced that it would not be helpful. I'll see if I can find the thread.

[Bill Pham]

hi Barry sorry i can't help with the question. just saw that you are from st. paul also. figure i let you know about a local site here. mostly friendly groups. should look it up.

http://www.cameratalk.org/mn/

Bill

[tim]

It'd be handy, but I don't think any real macro Canon primes have IS.

[bits]

How macro do you want to go. I think the primes tend to be faster so are less likely to need IS, but here's a link to the 300mm f4L IS which indicates that Canon considers this macro lens.

However, that's where the question "how macro do you want to go" comes in. Canon indicates Macro on the lens, but in my books 1:4.2 isn't really macro. It's close focusing, but macro?

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=163433

Also, here's a link to all the lens threads in this little universe known as POTN. Good info in quickly digging down into information on specific lenses.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406


By the way, regarding my little universe joke, just don't ask them to "take me to your leader". I've seen his avatar.. you don't want to go there.. :rolleyes:

[tim]

A real macro lens is 1:1 or better (ie 2:1), anything else is just a marketing term. You tend to shoot macro lenses with a narrow aperture, F8 or F16, so a tripod is probably more useful than IS anyway.

[TitusvilleSurfer]

Macro and Tripods go together. Your working with such RAZOR RAZOR thin DOF that hand holding just doesn't work. I'm talking millimeters here. A macro lens with IS is just a super sharp landscape lens. Too sharp for portraits...too slow AF for anything that moves...and the IS won't help with real macro stuff (or landscapes for that matter). There isn't a point really. I don't actually own a macro lens myself buy have gotten some quality playing time with friends' 100's and 180's. Never had the pleasure with a 60. (I hope to buy the 100 soon as my friend rarely uses it)

[Jaetie]

but I don't think any real macro primes have IS.

noink has the 105mm VR macro.

[tim]

noink has the 105mm VR macro.

Sorry I was only talking about Canon lenses.

[Tee Why]

To answer the OP's questions. Yes, Macro lens with a IS is a possibility as Nikon has a 105 f2.8 macro with VR (their IS).

Seeing as if you do macro work handheld, slight hand shakes are modified when you are close to the subject so IS would be helpful here.

[khukri]

I am seriously toying with the idea of shifting to Pentax (K20D) just for its in-camera IS (Pentax call it SR) for macro work hand held. There is a school of thought that says macro = small apertures/max DOF; equally, I see great potential in shooting macro (a magnification range of 1:2 to 2:1) more or less wide open with highly selctive focus. (If one evaluates tele shooting, effectively that is what a lot of us do: focus on a key feature and let everything else go OOF and merge with the bokeh.) By the way I shoot close up (<1m) with a 300 IS + ext tubes hand held and am quite happy with the results. What ever better image quality one may get with a 180/3.5 macro wil be lost in hand tremor without IS. (One really cannot efficiently shoot small, jumpy animal life or flowers on steep inclines with a tripod set up in field conditions - certainly not in the Amazonas or the upper Himalayas at 16000 feet. By the time you set up the rig, the subject has set off.) Also, there are better chances of capturing the subject at 1 to 1.5m range with a 300mm; with a 180/3.5 at 0.5m the chances of spooking the subject are significantly higher.

In nutshell I do think Canon needs to make up lost ground and come up with an IS macro lens in the 135 to 200 mm range. A highly effective IS with a 4-5 stop efficacy will significantly reduce th need for a tripod and increase picture taking opportunities. Actually I wonder why Sigma/Tamron have not thought of this so far. It should certainly pull a huge crowd their way.

[xarqi]

Found it at last!
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=363565

There is some discussion there about the pros and cons of an "improved" 100 macro with IS.

[Nick_C]

I found the lack of IS a real problem when I owned a "true" macro lens, I shoot a lot of still subjects handheld, I didnt get many keepers with the macro lens, in the end I got rid of it for some tubes.

On my 24-105 the quality is not great, on my 70-300IS im not kidding but the border sharpness is identical to the 50mm macro I had, I did some tests & on 100% crops it was identical, obviously I cant do 1:1 with this setup, but I usually dont need that level of magnification, but now with IS I can stop down to a much greater degree & its FAR better!!

Roll on the days when IS becomes available on ALL primes, sure primes are quite fast already in low light but with IS it can be even better!!

[tim]

I see great potential in shooting macro (a magnification range of 1:2 to 2:1) more or less wide open with highly selctive focus.

I shoot a lot of wedding rings. With the 100mm macro at F2.8 and the rings at about 6 inches from the lens the DOF is so narrow the shot's pretty well useless to me. F8 or F12 you start to be able to see more of the rings and the engraving. Similar things happen with insects. This is more of an artistic decision though.


In nutshell I do think Canon needs to make up lost ground and come up with an IS macro lens in the 135 to 200 mm range. A highly effective IS with a 4-5 stop efficacy will significantly reduce th need for a tripod and increase picture taking opportunities.

At 5 stops the swaying of a person backwards and forwards could become pretty significant. There's only so much IS can do.

[Rankinia]

I would absolutely love IS on any of the macro lenses. Numerous reasons, one being using a deeper depth of field with hand holdable speeds, two being my 180 and my hand combination doesnt work as well as Id like.

Long story short if the 180 macro came out tomorrow with IS id be doing all I could to be first inline to buy it.

Rankinia

[Jman13]

I agree with the above entirely.. I'd love IS on my macro lenses.

[bbrovold]

hi Barry sorry i can't help with the question. just saw that you are from st. paul also. figure i let you know about a local site here. mostly friendly groups. should look it up.

http://www.cameratalk.org/mn/

Bill

Thanks for the link. I am sure I will be spending some time there.

Barry

[Nick_C]

I shoot a lot of wedding rings. With the 100mm macro at F2.8 and the rings at about 6 inches from the lens the DOF is so narrow the shot's pretty well useless to me. F8 or F12 you start to be able to see more of the rings and the engraving. Similar things happen with insects. This is more of an artistic decision though.

For a large depth of field at usuable handheld shutter speeds, you cant beat a point & shoot, sure it might not have the edge in IQ compared to our DSLR setups, but my 720IS kicks my 5D's butt when it comes to macro, f/2.8 on my A720IS looks more like f/11 on my 5D, I could focus stack with the 5D but thats a pain on anything that is prone to movement.

I now tend to use my 5D for photographs that I sell & the little camera for macro stuff, it really is that good!

[canotographer]

sure you need marco with IS espcially talking about the Full focal lengh macro such as those 180mm or 200mm.

[amfoto1]

Nikon themselves admit that VR on their 105 Macro has little effect at high magnifications.

Any form of stabilization, optical or in-camera, is going to be the same. The higher the magnification and closer you get to 1:1, the less the stabilization will help.

Get a flash and use it for macro shots. And/or, use reflectors. And/or, use a tripod or at least a monopod.

[Canon Bob]

The IS is only going to help with the lateral/vertical movements....the third axis (distance) is just as important with small DOF and hence you still need to be rock steady.

Bob

[argyle]

I wouldn't find a use for it. 99% of my macro shots are taken with a tripod and focusing rail...IS wouldn't really do anything for me. And as Canon Bob has mentioned, you still need distance control to maintain focus...one little wobble backward or forward can't be helped with IS.

[oldsquawk]

Photographers who have the Nikon 105mm VR lens report that VR is not all that helpful. They cite body sway and small movements in and out of focus to be a greater problem than camera shake. I take care of camera shake by shooting almost all of my macros using flash.

[tim]

For a large depth of field at usuable handheld shutter speeds, you cant beat a point & shoot, sure it might not have the edge in IQ compared to our DSLR setups, but my 720IS kicks my 5D's butt when it comes to macro, f/2.8 on my A720IS looks more like f/11 on my 5D, I could focus stack with the 5D but thats a pain on anything that is prone to movement.

I now tend to use my 5D for photographs that I sell & the little camera for macro stuff, it really is that good!

I've read that before, I might look into that some time but I think I have enough equipment to carry around already! Thanks :)

[bbrovold]

You all have some valid points on the merits of IS on a macro. It probably would only be a benefit for shooting non-macro situations and that's not generally why we buy this type of lens. I suppose someday the cameras will be able to automatically shoot a stack sequence with varied focus positions and edge detection software will be able to stitch them together for amazing depth of field. In some ways I miss the good old days but I don't miss waiting for my film to come back from the processor or standing in the darkroom.

[JeffreyG]

All we need is 3D IS. Add the current 2-axis IS to the 100 macro and then engage the ring USM to drive the third axis via the focus mechanism. I wonder if such a thing could be made to work.

[Lester Wareham]

Could they and would they make a macro with IS? Not knowing the pitfalls of lens design, is it something that could be done and would it be of any benefit?
Just thought I would throw that out there. My history in photography went back to the old Canon F1's with motor drives and big 85 1.2 glass so I am not up on the IS thing.

They could and Nikon have.

However the IS would not be effective at macro magnifications and only partly effective at closeup distances, for example with the Nikon VR macro Nikon state that the advantage of 4 stops at infinity focus is reduced significantly at magnifications of 1:60 or more and at close to life size a tripod is still recommended.

The reason for this is there are 3 rotation and 3 displacement degrees of freedom or movements for the lens in 3 dimensional space. The IS/VR system reduces shake on 2 of the rotational directions which is OK at low magnifications, but some of the others become more significant at magnification increases.

Having said this many of us use the 300 f4 IS with tubes, at around 0.3X to 0.5X I estimate there is no more than a stop of help from the IS, to be honest a monopod is better.

So although the technical justification for adding IS to a macro lens may be poor, people seem very keen on it because they are not aware of the limitations, a bit like in-body IS. Nikon sold quite a few lenses using the VR ticket and I understand there was some disappointment.

So the main reason it may get placed in a macro lens would be is Canon thinks it will boost lens sales. Might be of some use around the 200mm focal length.

[Lester Wareham]

All we need is 3D IS. Add the current 2-axis IS to the 100 macro and then engage the ring USM to drive the third axis via the focus mechanism. I wonder if such a thing could be made to work.

Unfortunately at closeup and macro distances some of the displacement degrees of freedom also look like they become significant, the rotational one didn't. However there was a lot of guesswork involved.

[neumanns]

In my own unprofessional and unscientific findings...But from my own observations.

IS is detrimental to fine detail...and being that fine detail is often a consideration in macro I think that is the reason for not including it on the 100mm. (and other macro primes)

This fine detail is not resolvable at longer working distances so it is not as detrimental in a working distances beyond a couple feet.

I believe I can capture more fine detail with my 17-55/tubes with the IS off and all other considerations equal.

My theory is... IS moves a lens element constantly resulting in somthing equivilant to camera shake on a minute scale causing softening in the fine detail.
.
.
.
I can not prove this, but it is my belief.

[steved110]

There is no reason at all why Canon woudn't make an IS macro lens. Nikon has proved it can be done, and this is one of a few areas that Canon needs to respond to at some stage!

I have a knack of buying things just before model change - 20D, 70-200 f/4 - and I have just bought the 100mmf/2.8 macro....so I am confidently expecting Canon to upgrade the lens soon....;)

[number six]

99% of my macro shots are taken with a tripod and focusing rail...

Got any pictures of a good focusing rail? I ask because I'm thinking of making one and some design ideas would be useful. (I have a small home machine shop.)

-js