Canon 100mm Macro - Is lack of IS an issue?

A

AllThumbs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
My kit pretty much consists of the two IS kit lenses and a Raynox, and I have to admit, as I've a slight tendency to 1) have less than steady hands, and 2) prefer not to use a tripod, I've found these a terrific boon.

However I've recently come around to macro and semi macro (as in not the head of the butterfly but the whole butterfly in situ) and have been wondering about either the 60mm macro or the 100mm macro.

I bought a flash to assist with the not wanting to use a tripod.

My problem is that neither lens is IS. Now, I'm not going to spend the grand on the new 100mm IS macro......that's so far outside my spending regime as to be pie in the sky.

My question is I suppose, would the 60mm make more sense as it is about half the length and presumably the weight. I know you lose the extra distance from the subject, but if I want to look at something from a distance I can use my 55-250. It's not a macro but I rather like it all the same and it allows that comfort zone for the bugs.

I guess what I'm really asking is does the lack of IS hamper either of the lenses, and would the 100mm suffer from not being used on a tripod as I'm more a roamer than a stalker.
 
I never use my 100 on a tripod. Never had any problems due to lack of IS. The only problems I ever had were when the subject moved which neither IS or tripod would help. I tend to use a ringflash most of the time so that I can use a narrow aperture to get a good depth of field.
 
I have the 100mm macro and when using it for macro the lack of IS is not a problem at all. Using flash as well will really help in getting those images pin sharp. I always use it at a 1/200 shutter speed for macro and am happy with the results.

With regards the difference between the 60mm and 100mm I would say that if you can afford the 100mm go for that one. I find sometimes that the working distances for bugs is still too close with the 100mm. A 60mm lens would be great for the less shy of the macro world, but once you find butterflies that won't let you get on top of them, it will be a bit frustrating.

There are a few on here with the 100mm macro and they love it. Another contender is the Sigma 105mm. Never used it myself, but there are plenty on here who do and they achieve some awesome results.

Hope that helps.
 
There is a massive difference between using a tripod and not using a tripod if shooting macro. The massive magnification will result in inferior sharpness in many instances if you hand hold. So if its best to use a tripod then IS is not needed

stew
 
artona said:
There is a massive difference between using a tripod and not using a tripod if shooting macro. The massive magnification will result in inferior sharpness in many instances if you hand hold. So if its best to use a tripod then IS is not needed

stew
Click to expand...

Sorry Stew but I disagree, if you are taking a macro shot of a still subject, the inside of a watch for example then yes the tripod will be fine, but if you expect an insect to hang around whilst you set up a tripod, frame the shot and take the picture, well, you are not going to get what you want.

Have a look at the stuff in the macro section on here by the likes of ajophotog and others who rarely use a tripod, but use flash (of various kinds) to freeze the action.

There is a bit of a technique involved which requires setting your magnification then slowly rocking back and forth until the subject is in focus, then pressing the shutter. A lot of macro work is done in manual focus for this reason. Yes you will get a lot of OOF shots too (good thing digital shooting is cheap) but without superglueing a wasps legs down you don't have much other choice!
 
Of course you are right Ed but I doubt if many of the great insect shots we see are opportunist photos. Usually its done in a set up. The nature photographer knows where the insects tend to be. He sets up the camera on a tripod, flash is set up using a beam for the insect to cross and fire the flashes/camera.

Yes you will always get the occasional great grab shot but the full time nature photographer will want to be in control not rely on luck.

I shoot portraits and I find that IS and flash do not mix well. I have not looked into IS but I am told that apparently it gives off some short of pre shot which can cause problems with flash or fast moving subjects. As I say I have not really looked into it so if you have more info........... at the moment I simply leave it to off

stew
 
I shoot a lot of macro and never use a tripod or flash and don't have IS. Using a good hand holding technique and keeping the shutter speed at 1/250 or faster works well for me. IS allows you to use slower shutter speeds but doesn't stop subject movement, where you'll still need a faster shutter speed or flash. I've found a tripod isn't useful for photographing insects but a stealthy approach is.
 
I have the 100mm Macro and it does benefit from a steady hold which i haven't got so tend to use a tripod
As mentioned above most shots are planned for so not an issue

Daresay IS would be nice, but damn expensive and finding that I don't use the lens much as I thought anyway
Thinking about trading it in for something more everyday although it does get the odd non-macro use too
 
I've just ordered a Canon 100L IS so hopefully at the weekend I will be able to see if it makes a difference or not. I have used flash but never a tripod to take any insect pics, I have just bought an MT-24 to couple with the 100L.

I agree with Stew that some of the amazing insect pics have probably been shot in controlled conditions with a tripod and probably high speed flash, but I would bet that the majority of insect macro shots that we see on a day to day basis are shot freehand!
 
EdBray said:
I've just ordered a Canon 100L IS...
Click to expand...
Excellent. I'd love to see the results, the 9 blade circular aperture should produce some lovely bokeh, probably the main reason I'd want one.
 
Thanks for the replies folks.

I shall keep my eye on the 100 then and aim at that when funds permit.

Would like to see some of the shots with the 100L IS myself.

I think I'm also going to have to really get my head around the flash to make the most of the macro lens. (lots of reading / experimentation to do)
 
artona said:
Of course you are right Ed but I doubt if many of the great insect shots we see are opportunist photos. Usually its done in a set up. The nature photographer knows where the insects tend to be. He sets up the camera on a tripod, flash is set up using a beam for the insect to cross and fire the flashes/camera.

Yes you will always get the occasional great grab shot but the full time nature photographer will want to be in control not rely on luck.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that any of my macro shots are up to the standards of Alby for example, but some have been pretty damn close and pretty OK in comparison. In shooting insects, dragons and butterflies I can say that I have never used a tripod or staged a picture.

Clearly that's where I've been going wrong :suspect:
 
To be honest, using a tripod is a major pain in the but tocks (as forest gump would say); you spend most of your time trying to get the tripod at the right angle and then you realise belatedly that the subject probably flew away about 45 minutes earlier. If using a flash then you can 'freeze-frame' the subject giving a very sharp result hand held.

Alternatively, use a stick as a monopod (sort of) to lean against when taking the shot - the additional stability reduces camera shake by a huge amount.

With regards to Artona - you need to see some of LordV's shots. He takes great shots time and time again on a daily basis and he never uses a tripod.
 
The last time I tried resorting to a tripod I had a Raynox on the front of my 50-250mm lens and I was using an old benbo which, whilst it's great in so far as it can get into just about any position, it's not exactly wieldy or light. Fortunately the bugs I was shooting were not overly fussed (Rosemary beetles on lavendar). But I've since surpassed those shots using no tripod and a higher ISO.

I'm glad to hear that the 100mm is ok as a roamer lens. I did go and have a peek at a Tamron 90mm but I think the Canon 100 beckons me more.
 
artona said:
I have not looked into IS but I am told that apparently it gives off some short of pre shot which can cause problems with flash or fast moving subjects.
Click to expand...

Who told you this? IS is all about movement in the lens.
Some motors in the lens move some of the glass to compensate movement of the image
 
AllThumbs said:
My kit pretty much consists of the two IS kit lenses and a Raynox, and I have to admit, as I've a slight tendency to 1) have less than steady hands, and 2) prefer not to use a tripod, I've found these a terrific boon.

However I've recently come around to macro and semi macro (as in not the head of the butterfly but the whole butterfly in situ) and have been wondering about either the 60mm macro or the 100mm macro.

I bought a flash to assist with the not wanting to use a tripod.

My problem is that neither lens is IS. Now, I'm not going to spend the grand on the new 100mm IS macro......that's so far outside my spending regime as to be pie in the sky.

My question is I suppose, would the 60mm make more sense as it is about half the length and presumably the weight. I know you lose the extra distance from the subject, but if I want to look at something from a distance I can use my 55-250. It's not a macro but I rather like it all the same and it allows that comfort zone for the bugs.

I guess what I'm really asking is does the lack of IS hamper either of the lenses, and would the 100mm suffer from not being used on a tripod as I'm more a roamer than a stalker.
Click to expand...

You have the answer in your hands. Put the Raynox on to the 55-250 and try it at 60mm, IS on and IS off, then try it at 100mm. See how you get on.

I think you'll find that neither IS nor AF are much help with really close up stuff, and you pretty much have to use flash anyway.

artona said:
Of course you are right Ed but I doubt if many of the great insect shots we see are opportunist photos. Usually its done in a set up. The nature photographer knows where the insects tend to be. He sets up the camera on a tripod, flash is set up using a beam for the insect to cross and fire the flashes/camera.

Yes you will always get the occasional great grab shot but the full time nature photographer will want to be in control not rely on luck.
Click to expand...

Using a trigger beam is a very rare, highly specialised and complex technique. Most unusual.

I shoot portraits and I find that IS and flash do not mix well. I have not looked into IS but I am told that apparently it [IS] gives off some short of pre shot which can cause problems with flash or fast moving subjects. As I say I have not really looked into it so if you have more info........... at the moment I simply leave it to off

stew
Click to expand...

IS doesn't work like this at all.
 
HoppyUK said:
IS doesn't work like this at all.
Click to expand...

I do not see the point in just saying it does not work like that without explaining why!!

To the OP here are a couple of links

Quick intro to IS

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Canons more involved description

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/infobank/lenses/image_stabilisation.do

If you look on page 2 canon outlines what I had been told. The problem involves panning. So if you were following a flying insect with an early IS lens problems might occur. Page 3 outlines the potential problems with using IS and a tripod

stew
 
I use the MP-E65 which has no IS and no auto focus and hand hold and shoot on the fly without pre-staging - it's light you need and the more the better, trying to preset shots with a live subject is just too hard, with only a couple mm of DOF max available pre-focussing on where you think the eye of a spider will be is just impossible.
 
I do find IS to be handy. I've tried my 55-250 with it off and for me it makes the world of difference. That said the 4.5max app isn't so helpful, and, as the AF can sometimes hunt I mostly shoot on manual focus or fine tune with manual. (Or use the body rocking approach).

They usually talk about IS giving you extra stops so I guess the greater max app on the 100 evens out (even though I suspect you seldom shoot it wide open).

I've yet to make a satisfactory snoot (if such is the word) for my flash, though I'm going to try jgs001's version next

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=132158

Dogfish, I really liked your (under construction) site - lovely shots.
 
artona said:
I do not see the point in just saying it does not work like that without explaining why!!
Click to expand...

Sorry Stew, but I was just confused. I didn't know what you were saying, other than it was wrong, so didn't know what to explain ;) Here's your quote: "I shoot portraits and I find that IS and flash do not mix well. I have not looked into IS but I am told that apparently it gives off some short of pre shot which can cause problems with flash or fast moving subjects. As I say I have not really looked into it so if you have more info........... at the moment I simply leave it to off"

IS has nothing to do with flash. There is no 'pre-shot' with IS, although there is a pre-flash with E-TTL auto flash, if that is what you were thinking about, but this has nothing to do with IS, nor does it have any effect on it.

You don't say what your problem with portraits/IS/flash is but I can't see any reason why should want to turn it off.

There are sometimes difficulties with IS when panning a moving subject, as naturally enough the IS detects this as camera movement and tries to correct it. Lenses where this is a potential problem have two IS modes, and switching to Mode 2 disables the horizontal correction.

The other 'problem' often cited is using IS on a tripod. The main reason for switching it off on a tripod is a) it shouldn't be necessary, and b) tripod mounted cameras are often switched on and active for long periods and IS drains the batteries quite quickly.

But personally, with my 100-400L on a tripod I leave it on - and the benefits are considerable. To see what I mean, if you have live view, fit a long lens with IS and zoom in to maximum magnification on the LCD screen. The IS-off image will dance about at the slightest movement, but switch IS on and it all goes beautifully smooth. Flippin marvelous it is :) I am not the only one that goes against the tripod-on-IS-off mantra.

Please give more info on your portraits/flash problem. I'm sure there will be a simple explanation :)
 
AllThumbs said:
and 2) prefer not to use a tripod, I've found these a terrific boon.
Click to expand...

Boon = good thing no? Tripods are perfect for macro, and you'll be hard pushed to find a dedicated macro lens with IS because they assume you will be using a tripod and therefore don't include it.
 
Blue Eagle said:
Boon = good thing no? Tripods are perfect for macro, only for still subjects for moving insects they are pretty much uselessand you'll be hard pushed to find a dedicated macro lens with IS because they assume you will be using a tripod and therefore don't include it Canon obviously have just wasted their time bringing out a NEW Canon EF100 L lens with IS as there is obviously no call for it, especially at about £1000 a pop.
Click to expand...

IS has improved drastically in the last couple of years and it will become more prevelent across the range of lenses in future years. Hybrid IS has been used in the Macro lens and only time will tell if it will be a winner or not.
 
Nikon 105 2.8 macro also has VR, but (allegedly) normal VR doesn't work so well at very close distance, due to the fact that shift movement becomes a signifcant factor, as well as tilt. I've heard that Nikon's VR isn't much use beyond about 1:2 magnification for this reason, and this is also why Canon's new Hybrid IS is significant - it corrects the shift movement as well.

Personally I don't understand why normal IS/VR is supposed to be ineffective in ultra close up. I can get down to 1:1 with my 70-200L 4 IS and tubes, and with IS on the stabilisation effect is still very noticeable and beneficial. It is useful for accurate framing too, as it stops the image jumping about so much.

Even though most people use flash with macro and so camera shake shouldn't be too much of an issue, it is still possible and IS can only help. Canon's new system sounds really good, and if it can indeed deliver an extra four stops of hand-holdability with macro, it could open up a new opportunity for flash-free macro photography.

I guess Ed will soon be finding out. That is a blindingly stella lens. Keep us posted bud :)
 
HoppyUK said:
The other 'problem' often cited is using IS on a tripod. The main reason for switching it off on a tripod is a) it shouldn't be necessary, and b) tripod mounted cameras are often switched on and active for long periods and IS drains the batteries quite quickly.
Click to expand...

cannot remember if i was told or read somewhere that if IS is on when on a tripod it searches for movement which it cannot find, so it is constantly moving and never settles resulting in blurred image :shrug::shrug:
 
RKC said:
cannot remember if i was told or read somewhere that if IS is on when on a tripod it searches for movement which it cannot find, so it is constantly moving and never settles resulting in blurred image :shrug::shrug:
Click to expand...

Not quite. IS doesn't search for movement, it reacts to it. When you have IS on but no movement with the camera, it is like sitting at the traffic lights with the car in gear, but the clutch down. It's not the same as neutral with the handbrake on in mechanical terms, but the car is still going nowhere. It's just ready to move instantly.

The system is of course active, but that is what you want. If there is no movement, it does nothing, but there often is movement when using a tripod especially when you've got a long lens. It is very evident with my 100-400L at the long end; a puff of wind is all it takes.

If you have live view it is easy to see this by using the LV magnification - it's jiggling very fractionally all the time but with IS on, it smooths out.

This is my experience, and as I say I'm not alone in this. However, I'm equally sure there are many people who prefer to turn IS off for whatever reason, and still more who turn it off because they think they have to but have never actually tested it to see what happens. Maybe some IS/VR/whatever systems are different (I expect they are, there are lots of variations on the same basic idea out there, even within the Canon range) but I would simply say that if there is a problem then you would surely see it, and naturally turn it off. What I see is sharper images with IS on, than with IS off.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not quite. IS doesn't search for movement, it reacts to it. When you have IS on but no movement with the camera, it is like sitting at the traffic lights with the car in gear, but the clutch down. It's not the same as neutral with the handbrake on in mechanical terms, but the car is still going nowhere. It's just ready to move instantly.

The system is of course active, but that is what you want. If there is no movement, it does nothing, but there often is movement when using a tripod especially when you've got a long lens. It is very evident with my 100-400L at the long end; a puff of wind is all it takes.

If you have live view it is easy to see this by using the LV magnification - it's jiggling very fractionally all the time but with IS on, it smooths out.

This is my experience, and as I say I'm not alone in this. However, I'm equally sure there are many people who prefer to turn IS off for whatever reason, and still more who turn it off because they think they have to but have never actually tested it to see what happens. Maybe some IS/VR/whatever systems are different (I expect they are, there are lots of variations on the same basic idea out there, even within the Canon range) but I would simply say that if there is a problem then you would surely see it, and naturally turn it off. What I see is sharper images with IS on, than with IS off.
Click to expand...

like the use of the car :D i do not have a long lens with IS but as soon as i do i shall try what you have said, i do have the 28-135 so will experiment with this
 
Ive just picked up a second hand canon 100mm usm macro and im well happy with it. I bought it intending to should insects that i keep and breed and like the idea that i dont have to get right on top of the animal. so far ive not needed a tripod. You can always pick up some x1/x3/x5/x10 58mm close up lens to get even closer detail whilst staying those extra few inches away from the subject. (you would be glad of a tripod for this) It takes lovely portrait pictures. I was a bit like yourself uming about the 60mm but feel i make the correct choice for me. Others on here will be a whole lot more experianced than myself to give you more details but i do love this lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top