am thinking of buying a macro lens. is image stablizeer important ? I wanna buy canon 60mm macro lens due to its compactness and it doesnt cme with IS like its L series counterpart... based on ur experience, is IS worth ? my second option is tamrom 90mm VC lens but it is quite bulky to my liking...

p/s:i normally shoot handheld and not tripod

do u mean shooting macro or portrait or landscape with it?

for portrait as long as your shutter speed meet the rules of thumb then you are fine.

as for macro? you dont really need it.

landscape if long exposure, grab a tripod.

sorry i meant using macro lens to shoot bugs/insects.

naaa, u dont really need it. just some marketing thing to tell u their lens are better then others.

after sometime in macro u will eventually learn how to cope with all the macro issue u gonna face and how to shoot better marco, with or without the VC/IS/ABCDE.

you can't really say like this.

IS is always useful in photography (except long exposure that uses tripod), it might not work as well as normal shooting when in close focusing, but sometimes it's essential to get the correct composition. I used my friend's 100L IS before to shoot macro, trust me you can feel the IS helping you to frame.

that being said, it's not a MUST to have when doing macro, since your shutter speed will be quite high most of the time + using flash to freeze the object.

I lazy to argue but here come the strong points...
i)In lens optic stabilizer gives you 'false perception' that you think you are not shaking but in fact you Are shaking. I rather have no IS, so in the ovf, I would know if I'm controlling my shake to the minimum.
ii) lens with optical stabilizer is know to have less IQ... Or maybe it's false...
iii) if your IS is working at minimum, say 1stop of compensation, u get min is lost... If u shake more and require compensate up to 3 stop, more IQ lost. What's the point?

iv) if I were to use flash for macro? With or without IS will make zero difference then.

The arguement come back to LPPL.

1. This is a strong point. Not a weak point.
What false perception ? I don't give a damn if I'm shaking as long as my framing is stable and my picture has no motion blur.


2. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is by far the sharpest 70-200.
Canon 100mm IS Macro L is as good if not better than the Canon 100mm macro.
Canon 35 f/2 IS >= Canon 35 f/2
Canon 24 f/2.8 IS >= Canon 24 f/2.8


3. What ? I don't understand what you're talking about ?
Mind explaining this again in English ?

BTW, Current IS technology isn't that crappy anymore. It can detect when it's on a tripod and not cause some motion compensation feedback loop.
Even the effects when switching it on is negligible.


4. It'll still be useful during framing or focus stacking.


The only con of getting an IS lens is the price.

This post has been edited by LegendLee: Jun 16 2014, 10:11 PM

Lighting, flash and fast shutter speed is more important than VC / IS
in macro mode, any movement is too much for IS to compensate

This post has been edited by smokey: Jun 17 2014, 12:15 AM

i'm using 100mm L , living this
there sure a diff using the IS ... i only use it , when the situation needed ...

btw if ur into extreme macro, lighting is more important ...

1: you shake more, so what? that has nothing to do with the final picture since there's IS to help.

2: thats yesteryear story already. if not you wont be seeing top notch lenses having IS.

3: again IS dont make you lost IQ.

4: try framing with a 300mm or 400mm without IS then. you can get fast shutter speed but that has nothing to do with framing again.

The VC and IS is good to have if you are using the macro lens to take portraits. But in general for macro, you don't use VC or IS, unless if you are shooting using natural light

This post has been edited by [PF] T.J.: Jun 17 2014, 09:26 AM

Its not because IS is helping it to be sharp. Its the optics that are sharp. There's a difference.

mind explaining more y for macro IS is not really needed? i wont be using tripod as it is way too troublesome.. flash helps?

It's not because IS is deteriorating the optics.
You can have good optics with IS.

Just because a lens have IS, doesn't mean it has shitty optics.

There's a difference.

like what i said before, with flash your subject wont become blurred, but the problem is getting the framing. Get your kit lens, set it to 55mm and get the closest focus. now try turning on and off the IS and observe through your viewfinder.

I did not mention that having IS comes with shitty optics, never did I implied that as well. In case you didn't get me the 1st time, I meant that in any case an IS lens has its IS turned off, in stable conditions, it's still sharp. So having IS not not does not make any difference in that case, unless you have mild Parkinson's.

There's a difference (to what you have interpreted)

when u in macro mode, any small movement will become magnified...the movement is too much for the IS to compensate..
so its better to use a flash to freeze the movement by using 1 divided by ur lens length or a tripod

First
I was debunking EdPaul's post.
"ii) lens with optical stabilizer is know to have less IQ"

Second
Of course I know IS alone doesn't improve image quality in optical conditions nor did I imply that.
Lens with IS can be sharper than Lens with no IS does not mean IS affect sharpness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_d...imply_causation


Third
If you actually read my post you quoted, I basically mention that switching IS on/off will not affect IQ in any substantial way possible.
Which AFAIK, doesn't contradict nor is it really different than your statement.

uhhh... why are we arguing on things we agree on.
Let's just forget about this..

This post has been edited by LegendLee: Jun 20 2014, 02:47 AM

I suppose if u stand at a funny angle and have to extend your body, then u need the Image Stabilizer...

If it is me then i would need the IS because i would be shooting in Live View mode and holding the camera far from my body cos if u get near Insects and Bugs, they might jump on your face and Freak you out XD