IS Macro before the end of the year?

[KenjiS]

Just saw this article...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp

According to this, the new stabilization system would benefit macro shooting..

Also it will be in a new lens launched before the end of the year...

180mm f/3.5L HIS Macro USM anyone?

[j00sten]

Interesting. Maybe this is the reason they're updating the 70-200 f/2.8 IS? :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Personally, I'd love a 135mm f/2L IS Macro that's basically the 135 L but with IS and macro.

I'd buy that. :)

[KenjiS]

Personally, I'd love a 135mm f/2L IS Macro that's basically the 135 L but with IS and macro.

I'd buy that. :)

I think it would be impossible or hard to do optically, Also it would most likely lose the quick focus that the 135 f/2 has now

Now a 150mm macro a la the Sigma or a 200mm macro would be cool :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Well, Canon could make it. :p

150 f/2.8L IS macro. Yep.

:D

[Stealthy Ninja]

If you read the press announcement about the IS it says:
Canon is actively engaged in ongoing research and development of interchangeable SLR camera lenses incorporating Hybrid IS technology, and is aiming for the early commercialization and inclusion of the lenses in a wide range of products.

Looks like a bunch of new lenses/updates will be coming in the next year or so. :)

You can keep your 52 focus points, I'll go for the Company with the best lenses. ;)

[KenjiS]

If you read the press announcement about the IS it says:


Looks like a bunch of new lenses/updates will be coming in the next year or so. :)

You can keep your 52 focus points, I'll go for the Company with the best lenses. ;)

Is it so odd that press release made me grin with delight and immediately reaffirmed my faith in Canon?

Canon is possibly just going to be one step ahead, Update all their old IS lenses with the new H-IS [I wonder if it will get a new designation] and make Nikon look like a fool again :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

It seems one company is focusing on the lenses while the other is focusing on the bodies.

What does everyone say about glass before bodies? ???

:lol:

[KenjiS]

It seems one company is focusing on the lenses while the other is focusing on the bodies.

What does everyone say about glass before bodies? ???

:lol:

Thats all well and good until you start wanting a body with a nice big bright rear screen, more resolution and improved AF over your current one to go with that nice lens you have

[Stealthy Ninja]

LOL, yeah I think an update from your 30D to the 5Dmkii would be nice. :)

[KenjiS]

LOL, yeah I think an update from your 30D to the 5Dmkii would be nice. :)

Not for me it wouldnt, I shoot birds and moving things primarily, I LIKE my crop for one and for two I like having at least 5 fps, I might deal with a 1Ds Mark II though :) or a 1D Mark III

[Stealthy Ninja]

Not for me it wouldnt, I shoot birds and moving things primarily, I LIKE my crop for one and for two I like having at least 5 fps, I might deal with a 1Ds Mark II though :) or a 1D Mark III

I you can crop a 5Dmkii down to crop camera size and still get 10MP (if you shoot 21MP that is). You do lose the shutter speed if you're into that (I'm not, but I can see why BIF people would be. :) ).


Maybe a 60D (just wait.....wait.....now... wait for it!..1! :p ). Should be 8fps 16MP with video and built in IS... so my rumour goes that I made up just then. :lol:

[cfibanez]

I think IS in a macro lens 100mm and longer would be very helpful for handheld shots at high magnifications. A tripod is only useful for things that do not move about and there is also the burden of carrying it around while in the field. Getting really close to small critters, flowers, etc. does sometimes put you in very uncomfortable postures. A modern IS would be great to have in a macro lens. I for one would upgrade my lens at the first opportunity.

[zaathrus]

See

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/08/2-macro-lenses-cr1/

[Stealthy Ninja]

CR1 rumours are not too believable I think. Fun, but not believable.

[KenjiS]

CR1 rumours are not too believable I think. Fun, but not believable.

Well as he stated before, nows the high time for rumors..

It could just be a new source...

In a few weeks we'll know i bet

The 100mm Macro is a scarce hard to find lens right now

[Stealthy Ninja]

Well as he stated before, nows the high time for rumors..

It could just be a new source...

In a few weeks we'll know i bet

The 100mm Macro is a scarce hard to find lens right now

Could be, but that site must get so many people emailing what they "want" rather than what they "know".

I'm waiting for some CR3s :D

[Tom Reichner]

I hope this rumor is true. I really need a macro lens, but will not buy one unless it has IS. I've considered buying a Nikon body so I can also get a Nikon macro (they have VR), but I've just been a bit short on $ lately. I think it's pretty bad when a company doesn't offer something that it's loyal customers want so much that they actually consider buying another brand.

It seems one company is focusing on the lenses while the other is focusing on the bodies.


Makes me wonder why the heck one company won't do both.

[KenjiS]

I hope this rumor is true. I really need a macro lens, but will not buy one unless it has IS. I've considered buying a Nikon body so I can also get a Nikon macro (they have VR), but I've just been a bit short on $ lately. I think it's pretty bad when a company doesn't offer something that it's loyal customers want so much that they actually consider buying another brand.



Makes me wonder why the heck one company won't do both.

Tell me about it

That Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Macro is a lens id love to have...

The only company that seems to be doing both is Sony at the moment, But they're also playing catch up and trying to get lenses out there that Canon/Nikon already have

[MR do little]

The Nikon 105/2,8 VR is nothing to write home about if your into macro, "jack of all trades, master of none"

Neither IS/SSS/VRII at this point is that useful when it comes to 1:1 reproduction.

Anyone after a good macro lens, get the 125/2,5 Voigtländer or if you dont need 1:1 get the Zeiss 100/2 Makro planar. Both wich outperform both Canon and Nikons offering.

Neither Nikon or Canon is thin on lenses, wich you prefer depends on preference and what you shoot. Lenses/cameras isnt designed overnight it takes time and priorities are made to ensure a companies postion on the market.

It seems the guys that "want" new glass most is the guys shooting with F/4 consumer grade zooms around here...also the ones who seem to "know" best to..;)

[KenjiS]

The Nikon 105/2,8 VR is nothing to write home about if your into macro, "jack of all trades, master of none"

Neither IS/SSS/VRII at this point is that useful when it comes to 1:1 reproduction.

Anyone after a good macro lens, get the 125/2,5 Voigtländer or if you dont need 1:1 get the Zeiss 100/2 Makro planar. Both wich outperform both Canon and Nikons offering.


Unless you dont do 1:1 frequently, find it difficult/impossible to use a tripod in many situations and dont want to spend almost $2000 on a macro...

[MR do little]

;)Then your not after a macro lens , your after a IS/VR tele with closeup "ability" and at that the 105/2,8 VR isnt to shabby. Still focus is slow (for being af-s) build is not that great, and ca get worse as you stop down.

Again its a good compromise between the two (for most people) Optically the cheapo tamron 90/2,8 is equal or better.

With premium performance comes a premium price, you will have to look hard and long before finding a better corrected 1:1 macro lens for the 35mm format. (then VG 125/2,5)

Kindest

[KenjiS]

;)Then your not after a macro lens , your after a IS/VR tele with closeup "ability" and at that the 105/2,8 VR isnt to shabby. Still focus is slow (for being af-s) build is not that great, and ca get worse as you stop down.

Again its a good compromise between the two (for most people) Optically the cheapo tamron 90/2,8 is equal or better.

With premium performance comes a premium price, you will have to look hard and long before finding a better corrected 1:1 macro lens for the 35mm format. (then VG 125/2,5)

Kindest

Well yes, Precisely that, the Zeiss is a fantastic lens and i wont even attempt to argue that...

The problem for me is finding "that" lens, Right now im thinking a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a high quality close-up filter right about now...

IS comes in handy a lot of times, and while yes, I likely would stop the 70-200 f/2.8 IS down a lot, it also gives me flexability to use for other subjects, ie, anything fast moving and portraits

But then again, if Canon launches a 100 or 200mm IS-equipped macro, I will probubly give it a heavy long consideration...

Or maybe I'll just buckle down and do what others like me do, 180mm f/3.5 + twin light kit :)

[MR do little]

Well a prime @ 200mm with IS/VR/SSS regardless of make will set you back quite a bit... :-)

A 70-200/2,8 with a 250/500D isnt a bad combo actually. Yes IS/VR/SSS is handy no doubt, im just saying that for anyone serious about macro, AF or IS/VR/SSS dosent really matter that much.

VR/IS/SSS is great for many things, but its not a universal substitute for highiso performance as the Sony crowd claims (mostly because Sony dont have a equivalent to a D700)

I found SSS a great aid in many situations, but 9/10 i would take highiso performance instead. With Canon and Nikon you can get both with the "right" lenses.

Yea thats impressive kit, well the lens is anyway... .-)

Kindest

[KenjiS]

Well a prime @ 200mm with IS/VR/SSS regardless of make will set you back quite a bit... :-)

A 70-200/2,8 with a 250/500D isnt a bad combo actually. Yes IS/VR/SSS is handy no doubt, im just saying that for anyone serious about macro, AF or IS/VR/SSS dosent really matter that much.

VR/IS/SSS is great for many things, but its not a universal substitute for highiso performance as the Sony crowd claims (mostly because Sony dont have a equivalent to a D700)

I found SSS a great aid in many situations, but 9/10 i would take highiso performance instead. With Canon and Nikon you can get both with the "right" lenses.

Yea thats impressive kit, well the lens is anyway... .-)

Kindest

Thats true, and in my experience what i primarily use such lenses on [flowers] noise is oddly a non issue, in fact i was complimented by the fact the noise in the bokeh of one image gave it texture and an oil painting like quality

Ah well, For now, I'll see how the cards play, if the IS macros launch they could be quite pricey, but could also drive the old non-IS versions down in price because people might flock to grab them...Even if they dont come out, there is that option of the MT-24 that i always look past for some reason [Maybe im just a bit nervous to learn flash...] since no matter how good, IS isnt going to let you do ISO100, f/16-f/22 in slightly poor light...whereas I'm pretty sure a twin light is going to let you do that and more...plus if things are a bit windy a flash will help stop the stupid subject's movement.....

Actually thats sounding like a really good idea right now...Considering what i paid for the very good Sigma 180mm f/3.5 Macro I briefly owned [$380!] and the cost of an MT-24, I'm still less than the Canon 180mm f/3.5L...

[MR do little]

I should confess that i dont shoot alot of flora .-)

But im not a big fan of lighting rigs such as the Nikon R1C1 or the Canon MT-24, sure Nikon version is cool looking and can somewhat mimic the look of a ringflash.

For me the light is not very suitable for flora, i want a light that gives subtle shadows, to define texture, not hardlight that illuminate everything in the frame. (wich is what you get in most scenarios, using these lights on the lens)

The Sigma 180/3,5 is nice, a little to long on cropped cameras imo, and the build isnt half as nice as on the 150/2,8 Sigma.

[KenjiS]

For me the light is not very suitable for flora, i want a light that gives subtle shadows, to define texture, not hardlight that illuminate everything in the frame. (wich is what you get in most scenarios, using these lights on the lens)

The Sigma 180/3,5 is nice, a little to long on cropped cameras imo, and the build isnt half as nice as on the 150/2,8 Sigma.


True...Hmn...ill figure something out :) There has to be an answer out there..

And Eh, it honestly depends, i often cant get that close to my subjects...or if i can, im bent over at an odd angle to get the framing i want, So I found in my brief time with the Sigma 180 macro that i could get much better handheld shots because i could stand back a bit and have a good stance versus contorting my body and struggling to get closer, Also i didnt have to be as close to achieve the same framing and etc...

[MR do little]

If you need the working distance a longer lens is prefered, but so is often a tripod with longer lenses. .-)

The 180/3,5 Sigma is nice but the build leaves alot to be desired, especially the MF. (imo)

Problem with shooting those tiny flashes at a longer distance is that it makes the already tiny flashes even tinier light sources, wich in turn will give you a even harder light.

[KenjiS]

If you need the working distance a longer lens is prefered, but so is often a tripod with longer lenses. .-)

The 180/3,5 Sigma is nice but the build leaves alot to be desired, especially the MF. (imo)

Problem with shooting those tiny flashes at a longer distance is that it makes the already tiny flashes even tinier light sources, wich in turn will give you a even harder light.


Very good point

Perhaps a good monopod would be a good compromise...

And hey, I know the Siggy isnt built like the L, But it wasnt bad for what I paid :) Its somewhere between a good Canon consumer lens and a pro L lens....

Plus the guy at Juza swore by his Siggy, I saw how he abused his and it was still working like a clock :)

I know the EX finish is a bit love it or hate it, but i personally like it, I do think the L is a lot nicer, but the EX stuff is a good second [For whats available to me...]

[MR do little]

Hi Kenji!

Yea monopod might be good compromise. .-)

Let me clarify, the Sig 180/3,5 isnt much worse then most AF lenses when it comes to mechanical build, its manual focus is however far from precise and the 150/2,8 Sigma is alot better in this regard aswell is the Tamron.



No AF lens is really buildt to last (including the " L" lenses), and to me most of them feel tacky to say the least. The EX finnish is not helping, a cheap tacky finnish that peels off over time.

So while the 180/3,5 may take a fair ammount of abuse, its manula focus action and its finnish leaves alot to be desired for me.

Out of all AF macros iv used(and iv owned alot of them, including the Sigma 180/3,5), i must say that the MF action of the Sigma 150/2,8 is by far the best, seconded by the el cheapo Tamron 90.

Kindest

[Tom W]

How about a new redesigned 300 f/4 IS with an even shorter close focus distance.

[KenjiS]

How about a new redesigned 300 f/4 IS with an even shorter close focus distance.

That was a thought too, Just feels redundant to me with the 100-400 and everything thats all..

Oh and on the Tamron focusing note, I had their 70-200 f/2.8, its AF was pretty iffy, but I'll give it some major props for having some excellent ergonomics, it had a nice balance and feel and the MF ring and action WAS a delight to use...Not to mention the contrast and sharpness was pretty freaking amazing in my opinion...and the colors, The colors were stunning...For how much it costs it DEFINITELY impressed me...

In fact their 180mm macro might be a good consideration based on that, AF isnt needed in a macro at all...

[samueli]

...seconded by the el cheapo Tamron 90.

Kindest

I love my Tamron 90 for macro, but then I also haven't used that many lenses to compare. If my tamron where to break or become lost, I think I would replace it, even alongside an updated macro lens purchase. AF is rough though.

[MR do little]

Cant really beat the value of the el cheapo Tamron 90 imo, if you only take optics into account that is.

Kindest

[KenjiS]

Cant really beat the value of the el cheapo Tamron 90 imo, if you only take optics into account that is.

Kindest

Seconded, its a very darn good macro, and I've seen the older non-Di version go for under $200 before

And isnt it regarded as having some of the best bokeh around?

[Tom W]

That was a thought too, Just feels redundant to me with the 100-400 and everything thats all.

The only reason I mentioned the 300 f/4 IS is that among the long lenses in Canon's lineup, it is the closest thing to being a macro lens. It's not macro, of course, but it offers about .25X magnification naked, and around .33X with the 1.4X teleconverter. It is almost .5X with the 2X telecon, but that presents an f/8 lens/tele combination. A true macro, like the 100/2.8 offers at least 1X magnification.

I certainly don't expect any changes to the 300/4, but I thought I'd throw that out there. after all, it is the rumors forum. :)

[SteveNC]

Seconded, its a very darn good macro, and I've seen the older non-Di version go for under $200 before

And isnt it regarded as having some of the best bokeh around?

I really liked that lens for the month that I had it, but I really disliked the articulating element design. When I'm shooting macro I'm usually outdoors, and in that case it will be prone to dirt, etc. Huge personal preference on this, but that was the kicker for me.

[KenjiS]

I really liked that lens for the month that I had it, but I really disliked the articulating element design. When I'm shooting macro I'm usually outdoors, and in that case it will be prone to dirt, etc. Huge personal preference on this, but that was the kicker for me.

Nah, I agree completely, I'd also be worried that my elements would suddenly extend -right- into my subject or something...

And Tom, thats an excellent point and I do consider it sometimes, its also a really light lens :)

I wonder why nowone makes a longer macro though, My guess is size? a 300mm f/5.6 IS macro would be a very interesting lens for sure...

[amfoto1]

I've used the 500D on 70-200/2.8 IS and found it disappointing. Images lost a lot of saturation even though I was careful about using the hood and shading the filter from oblique light (I don't think 250/500D are multi-coated). I think I'd stick with primes if I were using either 250D or 500D.

Extension tubes, on the other hand, can turn practically any lens into a macro or near macro lens. They work quite sell on the 70-200 too.

Some lenses in the wide to short tele focal lengths will get a bit soft in the corners when an extension is attached, but that often isn't a problem. Teles 100mm and longer generally stay sharper edge to edge. True macro lenses generally work great with extension tubes, too, for higher magnification work.

Frankly I wouldn't spend the money for an IS version of a macro lens, if it's no more successful than the 105 VR Micro Nikkor. Even Nikon has had to admit there's little help from VR at the higher magnifications.

Why not a 300mm macro lens? Well the 300/4 focuses to under 5 feet. That's pretty high magnification. Put a 25mm or 36mm extension tube behind it if you need even more. I've usd extensions behind lenses ranging from 20mm to 500mm + 1.4X teleconverter.

The only "issue" with extension tubes is you need more and more length, the longer lens you are using them with. 12mm is radical extension with a 20mm lens, but 25mm only moderately increases close focusing ability with a 300mm.

So, why not stack as many as you want to get a lot of extension? One reason is that physically you are putting a lot of heavy strain on them, hanging a big lens on one end and a camera body on the other end. Also, each connection point reduces the efficiency of electronic communication between camera and lens, which means AF will slow down. And, a whole lot of extension causes a lot of light fall off, which further reduces AF speed and effectiveness.

A lot of macro shooting is more easily done without AF anyway. And you can do a lot with extension tubes, so I highly recommend them. Just use as few as possible to achieve the level of magnification you want.

Over the years I've used several of the Tamron 90mm and have to agree, it's a darned good macro lens. In fact I still have two older ones for use in vintage, manual-focus systems.

It doesn't seem to be all that difficult to build a good macro lens. I've heard good stuff about most of them. For most people, especially anyone shooting with a crop sensor camera, I'd recommend something in the 70mm to 105mm range. Longer ones require you to stop down a whole lot more to get adequate depth of field, which means slower shutter speeds and makes them a lot harder to keep steady (a key reason a macro lens longer than 200mm gets pretty impractical). Any shorter than 70mm puts you pretty close to your subject, which if it's a critter might chase it away or get you bit or stung, or if it's inanimate you might cast an unwanted shadow on it.

Another reason that a macro longer than 180-200m would be impractical, in theory you need extension roughly equal to the focal length to achieve 1:1.... That would make for a honkin' long 300mm lens, and one with really terrible balance issues if an internally focusing design were impossible.

[dbrod1]

How much do you think IS would jack up the 100mm macro price?

[alexwren]

http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/8689686.jpg

[kinless]

Ooo, a red ring. :: eyes turn red with evil smile ::

I have a feeling I'm going to be parting with my non-IS 100mm Macro soon.

Very soon.

[zaathrus]

*drool*

WANT! xD

[KenjiS]

*drool*

WANT! xD

x2!

Do Want!

Very much!

I'm VERY happy with Canon's anouncements, They've basically now given me EVERYTHING I wanted from Nikon..

The D300, the 16-85 VR and the 105mm VR Macro..

So Honestly, I'm happy as can be right now that I stayed with Canon

[zaathrus]

So Honestly, I'm happy as can be right now that I stayed with Canon
As Bon Jovi would say - "keep the faith" ;) TBH, I think I've found the missus' birthday/crimbo present!

(she has enough shoes!)

[KenjiS]

As Bon Jovi would say - "keep the faith" ;) TBH, I think I've found the missus' birthday/crimbo present!

(she has enough shoes!)

Exactly :)

I'm giddy as hell right now...Cant wait to finally replace my 30D...Great camera, but honestly, its had its time in my system :) 3 years of it and its just time to upgrade!

[krepta]

I'm so happy! I've always considered the current 100mm macro lens as one I want in my kit, but I'm glad I waited (although, it was not a priority for me anyway). I was pretty sure we would see a new 100 macro with the new hybrid IS system, but that it will also be an L lens makes it even more enticing. Now my dilemma will be to choose between that, the 24-105L, or the 24-70L as my next purchase... (please don't start a debate about the latter two, I've seen plenty!). I have enough saved up for one, but only one (plus a new body) in the near future. :rolleyes:

[KenjiS]

I'm so happy! I've always considered the current 100mm macro lens as one I want in my kit, but I'm glad I waited (although, it was not a priority for me anyway). I was pretty sure we would see a new 100 macro with the new hybrid IS system, but that it will also be an L lens makes it even more enticing. Now my dilemma will be to choose between that, the 24-105L, or the 24-70L as my next purchase... (please don't start a debate about the latter two, I've seen plenty!). I have enough saved up for one, but only one (plus a new body) in the near future. :rolleyes:

What about a 7D + 15-85? :)

If it were my money, I'd buy what I had, the 24-105 f/4L IS :) Great lens, More versatile imho

[krepta]

What about a 7D + 15-85? :)

If it were my money, I'd buy what I had, the 24-105 f/4L IS :) Great lens, More versatile imhoI am definitely considering the 7D. I will just wait for reviews to see whether there are any issues resulting from packing 18Mb into a 1.6 crop (I'm hoping you are right about Canon pulling a few tricks to avoid diffraction problems, keep noise low at higher ISO's, and overall preserve good IQ).

I don't think I will go for the 15-85; my 17-55 has been a mainstay for me, and I have the 10-22 for wider angle. Actually, you are right, I will most likely go for the 24-105 L first since I have a coverage gap between 55mm and 70mm. In any case, I plan to eventually own all three of the lenses I previously mentioned, so it's just a matter of what serves me better right now, as a simple hobbyist not making money out of photography (yet).

But seriously, I am almost drooling over this new 100mm L macro. Can't wait to hear reviews and see sample images.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Well, I'm getting the 100 2.8L IS Macro as soon as I can.

I'm not planning to get a 135L anymore (the f/2 is not worth it IMHO since the macro has IS, yeah I know less hunting etc. and shallower DOF, but 2.8 should do me and the new macro has that 0.5 - ∞ focus restrictor which will help with hunting. :) only thing is the 135L might be a little faster with the AF, but I'm not too worried).

I'll be an early adopter though (scary).

As soon as I see one in a shop I'm getting it. :)

[KenjiS]

Well, I'm getting the 100 2.8L IS Macro as soon as I can.

I'm not planning to get a 135L anymore (the f/2 is not worth it IMHO since the macro has IS, yeah I know less hunting etc. and shallower DOF, but 2.8 should do me and the new macro has that 0.5 - ∞ focus restrictor which will help with hunting. :) only thing is the 135L might be a little faster with the AF, but I'm not too worried).

I'll be an early adopter though (scary).

As soon as I see one in a shop I'm getting it. :)

From what i read, the USM has been upgraded in it too...Canon is pitching it as a do-all-telephoto...if it works, Well, it will be a hell of a lens...

I mean a sharp as a tack 100mm f/2.8L prime that also does macro shots? Win!

[krepta]

I would get the 135L if I were to do studio work. But since that is not the case, the new 100L macro would be perfect for walkaround portraits and, obviously, macro.

[Stealthy Ninja]

So when will this be in shops again?! I'm even giving up on the hope of the 70-200 2.8L IS for a while (I can always save for it WHEN/IF it comes out).

[tim]

The existing 100 F2.8 macro is already incredibly sharp, and has a focus limiter. I rarely use it for portraits just because the 70-200 F2.8 IS covers the range and has IS, and both are sharp.

[KenjiS]

So when will this be in shops again?! I'm even giving up on the hope of the 70-200 2.8L IS for a while (I can always save for it WHEN/IF it comes out).

I THINK October...but you might see it sooner...you live in HK dont you?

[Stealthy Ninja]

@ Tim yeah you're right, but even with the focus limiter engaged it hunts pretty bad on occasion. The focus limiter on the new 100 2.8L IS has 3 settings.

0.3 - 0.5 (I assume intended for macro)
0.5 - ∞ (Probably for portraits and telephoto stuff)
Full - For both (probably will hunt a bit in this setting).

I agree with weddings and live stuff (what you do) the 70-200 2.8L IS would be a much better choice.

I THINK October...but you might see it sooner...you live in HK dont you?

I exist in Hong Kong, I LIVE in my mind! :lol: Crazy dad man cat.

Seriously though, I do live in Hong Kong, so in the next few weeks or so I'll keep an eye out for one. I intended to go and order one, but I know if I do that, I'll just see it in another shop for sale BEFORE my order comes in. :rolleyes:

I did that once with a video tripod head. I had to wait an extra 6 MONTHS for it to come in. :shock:

[tim]

Yeah the 100 F2.8 does hunt more than most lenses, especially at macro distances, but outside in good light it's pretty quick. I think it's because the accuracy required is quite high the motor's geared lower, making it slower but more accurate.

[KenjiS]

Yeah the 100 F2.8 does hunt more than most lenses, especially at macro distances, but outside in good light it's pretty quick. I think it's because the accuracy required is quite high the motor's geared lower, making it slower but more accurate.

Well there arent any "gears" in the USM, my guess is the frequency of the power applied to the USM ring is just a bit lower than usual...

In one of the videos for the 7D they do show off the new 100mm f/2.8L focusing, it actually looks pretty darn quick!

[tim]

Well there arent any "gears" in the USM, my guess is the frequency of the power applied to the USM ring is just a bit lower than usual...

Ok however it works, you have to spin the focusing wheel further to go from close to infinity on that lens.