who was pretending that IS is anything but a "shortcut," no matter what lens they put it on? I do most macro handheld too, and I do have problems... and if an IS "cheat" gets me more keepers that is wonderful.
I like the "electronic tripod" term for this "cheat."
n0b0 wrote:
Meh, I shoot all my macros handheld and so do many other macro shooters here and elsewhere. Natural light or not, we're doing just fine without any IS. Very few people will have a real reason for needing IS for macro, the rest only want it as a shortcut. That's fine too, just don't pretend it's anything but...
too bad, at roughly the same cost T/S is probably more useful for macro than IS... though I'm still debating whether I can justify the cost of the 100L...
Jman13 wrote:
The TS-Es are specialty lenses...even with how good they are, they aren't going to sell many in relation to a high end macro lens.
There are a few too many people out there who do not understand the true merits of IS otherwise deeming it "needless for lens shorter than 200mm" or a "shortcut" with plenty of other misconceptions outside and in between I'll take that "crutch" and use it as a "shortcut" in any lens given it doesn't affect it's IQ.
Don't get me wrong, the 17 TS-E is my dream lens. I love architecture shooting, and I love using a tilt-shift, but I don't use it enough to even come close to justifying the cost. In fact, I'm going to sell my 24 TS-E (mark I) because while I love it, I just don't use it enough to justify having a $1000 lens that gets used once every few months, and I get no revenue from it.
Also, from the comments that the 100L is not sharp wide open, it's just hogwash. See the shot just above. I also tested at much further distances in non-closeup situations, and it's still very, very sharp. More than capable of pulling double duty, especially since the AF is so fast when limiting from .5m to infinity. While the corners wide open aren't TACK sharp, they're more than passable, and stopped down a bit, they're very sharp. There is some vignetting on full frame at f/2.8, but I don't mind that. Example in crappy light from yesterday:
100% crops are converted straight from RAW in Lightroom with defaults. No extra sharpening, levels, anything was done.
mh2000 wrote:
who was pretending that IS is anything but a "shortcut," no matter what lens they put it on? I do most macro handheld too, and I do have problems... and if an IS "cheat" gets me more keepers that is wonderful.
I like the "electronic tripod" term for this "cheat."
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.
hmmm, don't completely get the tone of these questions.
I show my work in galleries from time to time... off and on for 30 years. I shoot b&w film every week. My work falls within the "fine art" category and wouldn't really fit in a macro forum. I'm also not doing much at 1:1 (unless I'm shooting 4x5" hahaha!), more like "near macro." I'm 50.
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.
Oh I"m not questioning whether you're a pro or not, it's just that macro is more specialised than some people might think. When I'm talking about macro, I always mean Photomacrography which is done at lifesize and above magnification. What most people mean when they talk about macro is more like closeup photography, as you did.
If you hardly ever go up to 1:1 and put a great deal of value in bokeh, I think you'd be better served with an 85L + tubes. As I said earlier, I've seen some truly divine flower shots from this combo.
Breitling65 wrote:
Also another proof of needless IS for lens shorter than 200mm
Oh I hate when people reckon that IS is only good for telephoto lenses! Maybe for them that might be the case but for some it is very useful in much shorter lenses too.
I just have to say...any haters on this lens need to at least use one for a while. It's better than I thought it would be and I had high hopes. It's exceptional.
I never understood the hang up with 1:1 or it ain't macro. As I said, I shoot large format 1:1 and greater all the time... whew, yeah, I can strictly shoot macro... just depends on the format.
Tubes are a PITA, I have tubes.
I replaced my 100 USM macro with a TS-E 90... just as beautiful as a 85L from what I can tell... the TS-E 90 is my favorite lens anyway... and works very well at closeup and macro magnifications. I don't want an 85L anyway, too heavy and too much money for my use... and I don't care about f1.2, wouldn't work for anything I shoot typically anyway.
At 1:1 I think IS would probably be less useful than for my "closeup" work. At 1:1 any camera movement kills focus. At closeup distances and stopped down this is less of an issue and IS would tame some camera shake... that's the way I would see it anyway.
I haven't bought the 100L... deciding if I really want to spend the money... but from my use of the 100 USM non-L, I think it could be a real blast.
n0b0 wrote:
Oh I"m not questioning whether you're a pro or not, it's just that macro is more specialised than some people might think. When I'm talking about macro, I always mean Photomacrography which is done at lifesize and above magnification. What most people mean when they talk about macro is more like closeup photography, as you did.
If you hardly ever go up to 1:1 and put a great deal of value in bokeh, I think you'd be better served with an 85L + tubes. As I said earlier, I've seen some truly divine flower shots from this combo.
mh2000 wrote:
I never understood the hang up with 1:1 or it ain't macro.
Well because that's the original definition of macro, otherwise where would you draw the line? I blame it on lens makers for confusing people with their marketing. Now people just call whatever closeup shot they took a macro just because their lens has a "macro" written on it or a flower symbol. Some P&S even have "Super Macro" mode.
In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. With 35mm film this requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, which demands less of lens quality than 1:1.
well... anyway, it's still kind of stupid... 1:1 on a LF camera is nothing like 1:1 on a cropped camera... so unless you pin it to a format it is completely meaningless... at least with regard to a photograph.
mh2000 wrote:
well... anyway, it's still kind of stupid... 1:1 on a LF camera is nothing like 1:1 on a cropped camera... so unless you pin it to a format it is completely meaningless... at least with regard to a photograph.
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.
Who gives a crap? So if you're shooting at 1:1.3 instead of 1:1 because that's the framing that makes the most sense, you all of a sudden aren't shooting macro photographs, and therefore shouldn't have a macro lens? Are you only a macro photographer if you use an MP-E 65 or your macro lens with tubes or TCs? Because, frankly, I doubt most macro photographers go around with their focus ring stuck at 1:1 and fit the subject to the focus distance.
And, I wouldn't say that if you're not shooting 1:1 often, you shouldn't have a macro lens. In the 'exceptionally good medium telephoto lens' category for Canon lenses, there are exactly two that can focus at 0.5m, which is nowhere near 'macro' but is great for tight portraits or other stuff...but rather than messing with tubes, which are a pain in the butt, since you lose infinity and only have a narrow focus range, a macro lens makes a lot more sense.
I'll be using the 100L for macro FAR less than for portraits...but I absolutely love that I won't ever run into MFD for portraits, and I love that I can eliminate a lens from my bag and make it lighter...and I love that I get an ultra-sharp, great quality bokeh, wonderful color, fast AF lens with 4-stop IS. And..it's great for macro. I do shoot a fair amount of macro, but it's not my main thing...and I love that this lens is every bit as good a portrait lens as it is a macro lens. And it is...
All I've seen and read so far would indicate that we have an excellent lens here.
It continues with the high IQ tradition of 100mm f/2.8 lens versions, has the latest generation IS, and probably the AF drive was accelerated a bit in the non-macro focal distance range.
Although the lens is much more expensive than the IQ equivalent old version, the new lens is certainly one of the cheaper L lenses, the way Canon prices stack up these days. Therefore, if one is looking to get the highest performing telephoto around 100mm, there are two similarly priced lenses at the top of the heap: 100 f/2.8 IS and 135L. One can do macro and has IS, the other one is faster, both AF and aperture. Take your pick.
Lastly, if one is happy with the old 100 f/2.8, then there is probably no compelling reason to spend the extra money on new and improved stuff. I fail to see a photographic rationale for constantly upgrading to the latest version of every lens/camera type in our possession. However, it is great to have such good lens model options available for different budgets.
PetKal wrote:
Lastly, if one is happy with the old 100 f/2.8, then there is probably no compelling reason to spend the extra money on new and improved stuff. I fail to see a photographic rationale for constantly upgrading to the latest version of every lens/camera type in our possession. However, it is great to have such good lens model options available for different budgets.
Actually most of the time, logic or photographic rationale doesn't have anything to do with one's buying decision. It is gear lust raging inside you that takes control..... What? That thing can take pictures? Great! I will buy that .
FYI, Peter, I don't have the classic 100mm macro anymore. I sold it quite some time ago since I prefer the longer working distance of the 180mm version.
AGeoJO wrote:
FYI, Peter, I don't have the classic 100mm macro anymore. I sold it quite some time ago since I prefer the longer working distance of the 180mm version.
Joshua, so do I. ....very impressed with 180L since the day I got it.
Yet, I just can not bring myself to sell 100 f/2.8 USM......such excellent lens for what used to be a very reasonable price. Even today I feel the price is still OK.
I'll take that "crutch" and use it as a "shortcut" in any lens given it doesn't affect it's IQ.
.