n0b0 wrote:
Not you I guess, but then you're not a specialist macro shooter like myself so I understand.
What I don't understand is why you care whether people call macro 1:1 or 1:1.5, or whatever...does it matter? And, maybe I'm misreading the tone of your posts, but it seems like you think using a macro for non-macro work somehow invalidates the lens or that use of the lens. I'm just not getting that. If you NEVER shoot macro, or even just 'close up' stuff (which the non-macros don't do...the 135L focuses to 0.9m, which is close for that focal length, but not 1:3 or anything...there's no way to do that without a macro lens unless you want to mess with tubes, which I don't...I use tubes now for greater than 1:1 stuff, and I used tubes on a 50/1.8 when I first started experimenting with macro. Good quality stuff, but what a pain in the rear end.
Jman13 wrote:
What I don't understand is why you care whether people call macro 1:1 or 1:1.5, or whatever...does it matter? And, maybe I'm misreading the tone of your posts, but it seems like you think using a macro for non-macro work somehow invalidates the lens or that use of the lens. I'm just not getting that. If you NEVER shoot macro, or even just 'close up' stuff (which the non-macros don't do...the 135L focuses to 0.9m, which is close for that focal length, but not 1:3 or anything...there's no way to do that without a macro lens unless you want to mess with tubes, which I don't...I use tubes now for greater than 1:1 stuff, and I used tubes on a 50/1.8 when I first started experimenting with macro. Good quality stuff, but what a pain in the rear end. ...Show more →
Then I think you have indeed misunderstood my posts. I was actually talking about the usage of IS in 1:1 situation and I noticed some people seemed to think that they're having a problem shooting macro without IS while at the same time profess to have some experience in this specialised field.
As you can see in the macro forum, the macro specialists have been shooting without IS with great results so it really baffled me. In turn, it made me wonder if perhaps people only think they have experience in macro when in fact they have never actually shot real macro at 1:1 or above and as such, don't really know the tricks of the trade.
This is why I think it's quite important to make a distinction between photomacrography and closeup photography.
I traded in my non IS version for the new model. It certainly is better for portrait images but for macro...the old one IMHO produces much crisper images.
JTS0719 wrote:
I traded in my non IS version for the new model. It certainly is better for portrait images but for macro...the old one IMHO produces much crisper images.
Was that more your impression from using both or did you do a side-by-side comparison between the two? Just curious...
n0b0 wrote:
Then I think you have indeed misunderstood my posts. I was actually talking about the usage of IS in 1:1 situation and I noticed some people seemed to think that they're having a problem shooting macro without IS while at the same time profess to have some experience in this specialised field.
As you can see in the macro forum, the macro specialists have been shooting without IS with great results so it really baffled me. In turn, it made me wonder if perhaps people only think they have experience in macro when in fact they have never actually shot real macro at 1:1 or above and as such, don't really know the tricks of the trade.
This is why I think it's quite important to make a distinction between photomacrography and closeup photography.
I almost entirely use flash when I'm shooting near 1:1, as I've found in the past it's the only real way to get sharp shots at that magnification. That said, with the IS, I'm able to do it a bit more without flash. One thing, even with flash, that is very helpful with the IS, though, is the stabilized view...it's much easier to keep the framing how you want it when shooting handheld macro with IS.
"easier" to *say* I'm shooting "macro" for whatever reason I'd want to do that. In reality, you want to shoot a spider say, you need the magnification for the format to capture that spider and fill your frame... who cares if it fits the 1:1 criteria for talking?
A playing card shot with a 4x5" will not even fill the frame at 1:1, on a crop camera you will only get a closeup of the number at 1:1.
As a photographer I worry about my final image and how to get there, not denintions.
n0b0 wrote:
Well that just means you got it easier by shooting with large format. It doesn't change the fact the image of the subject projected onto the film is the same size as the subject itself, ie. lifesize. That's the main point here, lifesize reproduction.
I also think they do, Michael. Most gear can be used in a great variety of ways in the practice of photography. Alas, it is often in our minds that we construct boundaries and limitations related to gear.
(Now, watch someone suggest that I try shooting BIF with MP 65mm lens. )
n0b0 wrote:
You do most macro handheld too? That's cool and all but how often do you shoot macro though? Everyday? once a week? once a month? once a year? And what do you usually shoot? I never see you post a single photo in macro forum so I don't know your skill level in macro, I also don't know how old you are, and as such I don't know whether that problem is real or imaginary.
FWIW I shoot mostly macro when I'm not working. I shoot about 98% of the time handheld. I am 24 years old. I also have used the 100L and can say that the IS mechanism is useful for macro work at and around 1:1. Not only does it provide two stops of stabilization at these distances for static scenes but it also steadies the VF enough to notice a difference. This, for me, is the biggest plus. If you haven't had a chance to use it yet I think you should...you may be surprised at your findings.
Greg Hawkins wrote:
It could also get a not so high score because the $400 price jump for IS only isnt worth the effort. almost all macros are used with a tripod to begin with , so IS is alot of money for almost no bang.
M Vers wrote:
I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are...
I'd certainly agree with M Vers. Lots of people use macro handheld quit a lot of the time, I know that is how I use them. And certainly Canon knows that people will use the lens for things other than macro since they went and included the focus limiter switches. The AF is very fast when you limit to 0.5m-infinity. It is a compact relatively light 100m prime that can be used for 1:1 macro as well as many other uses. And the IS works wonders for those of us that have less stable hands and cant always use a tripod.
I'm certainly planning to get one in the next few months.
All of the above. It is a wonderful lens. Took it with me landscape shooting today. Did a tiny little bit of macro, but loved the IS for a few quick grabs where it would have been very awkward to set up the tripod due to the footing. I was at about 1/15 sec in many cases and the IS bailed me out.
n0b0, so you think of shooting LF at 1:1 as "photomacrography" even though you are capturing a huge subject matter and 1:2 on a crop camera just "closeup photography?" Most macro "specialists" (as you call yourself) wouldn't.
>>This is why I think it's quite important to make a distinction between photomacrography and closeup photography.
90% of my macro is hand held, a tripod is too cumbersome for most work except some floral type portraits and stacking and I've even done some hand held stacks. So I welcome IS.
I cant see anything in any review that would make me not get this lens. I seriously want a lens as versatile as this. I sold my 70-200F2.8L (non IS) and got the F4 IS version which I love but I miss the 2.8 ability for portraits. I will be getting this lens as it will suit my needs and I shoot almost totally handheld with or with IS. I could say that I can go without IS but if a lens has it well its just a bonus even if I don't need it all the time. From what Ive seen online this lens is great.
I've read most of this thread, and the ins and outs of "true" macro photography (1:1 and greater) have been pretty well covered in relation to limited use for IS.
I just want to add another voice in support of the versatility of the 100 L. I find it a great portrait lens. The quality is there throughout the range of apertures, the focus is fast and accurate, having the range to get tight framing is handy, IS makes a huge difference for me when subject movement is not an issue, and the bokeh is nice. When I want to do some detail photos, the flat field helps, and when I need to go to life size, no tubes are needed. What's not to like?
Breitling, read the numbers:
The 100mm L IS has higher center sharpness figures than every single lens tested on full-frame, from f/2.8 to f/8 in most cases, except for the cheap 50mm f/1.8 II plastic lens, which has exceedingly high sharpness figures, and wipes the floor with every lens tested.
That looks very good, Bobby.
BTW, what is that thing about a different plastic material used for the barrel.....apparently Canon used a different finish texture according to Bryan of Digital Pictures Com (Now, he also seems to believe other L lenses are made of metal, which is generally not the case for black lenses save a few exceptions.)
It is engineered plastic with a matte finish which is different from before, but seems sturdy enough. I think for nearly $1000 USD, people want some heft to their lenses. I recently tried the Nikkor 105VR macro and its heavier at nearly 750 g and feels good like cold hard steel. The Canon 100L IS macro is 625 g and plastic, but you can carry it around a lot longer. Oh, and image quality is better on the Canon.
