Canon 100mm Macro IS

[marcmccalmont]

I would like to hear from those that have upgraded from the non IS 100mm Macro to the IS version. Bottom line is, a nice used non IS is $400 and a new IS is $1000
I'd like to know if the new version has improved hand held macros and portraits enough to justify the difference in price? My current Macro is the Tokina 100mm which is a great lens with beautiful bokeh but no DxO lens support
Thanks
Marc

[stever]

i upgraded in hopes of faster focus underwater.  the IS is somewhat faster focusig.  the IS an excellant all-round lens with better wide-open performance than the old lens and you can do some hand-held macros.  for macro only, it's a tough call as from f8 on there's no difference in IQ and you can buy an old 400 and macro flash for pretty nearly the cost of an IS.  if you don't need the versatility of the IS, i'd save the money.

[marcmccalmont]

Thanks
Marc

[K.C.]

This has been discussed countless times on the various forums. Use the search function here or Google and you'll find those defending the cost of the newer version, which is better for some things, except macro, where the IS really doesn't work.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This has been discussed countless times on the various forums. Use the search function here or Google and you'll find those defending the cost of the newer version, which is better for some things, except macro, where the IS really doesn't work.

I have to disagree, the IS does work for macro, but then I'm just speaking from personal experience with the lens. Of course, due to the higher magnification it's not as effective as at lower magnification factors (longer distances), but it does make it a lot easier to keep the subject steady in the viewfinder when tracking subjects in the field. I feel it helps my compositions.

Qualitywise, there is only a small improvement over its predecessor, but the extreme corners lose contrast (only visible on "full-frame" sensors). So when using it for document reproduction, just don't fill the frame all the way to 100%.

The older 100mm is still a fabulous lens.

Cheers,
Bart

[marcmccalmont]

So what is your opinion?
Marc

[K.C.]

I have to disagree, the IS does work for macro, but then I'm just speaking from personal experience with the lens.

Like I said, those who own it feel the need to defend it.

Reviewers held a consensus on this.

From dpreview.com:

"Of course the big story with this lens is Canon's new Hybrid IS, and it's important to understand the system's strengths and weaknesses. We found it highly effective at longer subject distances - under ideal conditions it delivers on the four stops benefit promised by Canon - but despite the new dual-sensor design it still doesn't provide so much benefit at close distances. At 1:1 we found it delivered little more than a stop of stabilization - better than nothing for sure, but it's not going to help with the relatively long exposures often required when shooting macros at F11 or F16. It also (by definition) can't deal the inevitable back-and-forward sway of the photographer that throws the picture in and out of focus, and which can be only partially alleviated using continuous autofocus (even assuming you can place an AF point at exactly the desired position). So anyone expecting a 'magic bullet' for hand-held closeups will be disappointed, and for serious work you'll still need a tripod (which shouldn't come as any surprise to experienced macro shooters)."

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Like I said, those who own it feel the need to defend it.

I don't feel a need to defend it, I'm just sharing my impressions after actually using it, and testing the performance of both side by side.

Reviewers held a consensus on this.

From dpreview.com:

"Of course the big story with this lens is Canon's new Hybrid IS, and it's important to understand the system's strengths and weaknesses. We found it highly effective at longer subject distances - under ideal conditions it delivers on the four stops benefit promised by Canon - but despite the new dual-sensor design it still doesn't provide so much benefit at close distances.

Well, there you have it, just like I said. The effectiveness of IS is reduced due to the increased magnification.

At 1:1 we found it delivered little more than a stop of stabilization - better than nothing for sure, but it's not going to help with the relatively long exposures often required when shooting macros at F11 or F16.

Indeed the lens' IS is not magically going to stop subject motion either. It will reduce camera shake, but there are physical limitations with regards to exposure time. Of course, anyone with half a brain would use flash under such circumstances ..., and the IS will still stabilize the viewfinder image which, as I told, will help composition.

It also (by definition) can't deal the inevitable back-and-forward sway of the photographer that throws the picture in and out of focus, and which can be only partially alleviated using continuous autofocus (even assuming you can place an AF point at exactly the desired position).

Indeed, no surprise and AF on moving subjects has little to do with IS, although IS does help AF when it presents a somewhat more stabilized scene to AF on.

So anyone expecting a 'magic bullet' for hand-held closeups will be disappointed, and for serious work you'll still need a tripod (which shouldn't come as any surprise to experienced macro shooters)."

Indeed, no surprise. No magic bullet, it still requires skill and good technique to do macro photography.

So, if one also uses the lens for other things than only shooting 1:1 handheld existing light exposures at narrow apertures (and I can think of several scenarios), then the IS may be a deciding factor for one's type of photography. Whether that justifies the significantly higher price, I cannot make that decision for someone else. The optical qualities are close, with slightly better performance from the new lens, with somewhat softer extreme corners than in the center on a FF sensor.

Cheers,
Bart

[JohnKoerner]

I would like to hear from those that have upgraded from the non IS 100mm Macro to the IS version. Bottom line is, a nice used non IS is $400 and a new IS is $1000
I'd like to know if the new version has improved hand held macros and portraits enough to justify the difference in price? My current Macro is the Tokina 100mm which is a great lens with beautiful bokeh but no DxO lens support
Thanks
Marc

From someone who has actually used both (unlike K.C.), I believe the new lens is superior.

Had K.C. actually read your post, it is clear you wish to do portraits with your macro lens also, in which case the newer IS technology offers by all accounts a much improved difference (up to 4 stops) in reducing camera shake. No matter how you write it, word it, or quantify it "much better" = "much better"

Regarding macrophotography, the difference is not as noticeable as with longer distances, but there is an improved difference, and (once again) "an improvement" = "an improvement"

No one ever mentioned anything about "silver bullets," nor did anyone say or imply you still don't have to use good camera technique, so much of the fuss is simply the work of nay-sayers trying to build strawmen that they can knock down. All rhetoric aside, yes, the newer lens is the better lens. I also believe the bokeh is better on the new lens than on the original, with many reviews supporting this posture with statements such as:


"Just occasionally a lens turns up which delivers such implausibly good results in our studio tests that I have to go back and repeat everything, double checking all settings to make sure I haven't done something wrong. The Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro is one example; but in this case when I repeated the tests, the results were if anything slightly better."
~ DPReview

"The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for a macro lens and the Canon lens does truly shine here. Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far."
~ Photozone


All-in-all, in my view as someone who owns both, it was worth the extra $$ to upgrade from the previous 100mm to the new IS 100mm.

Hope this helps,

Jack




.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I also believe the bokeh is better on the new lens than on the original, with many reviews supporting this posture with statements such as:


"Just occasionally a lens turns up which delivers such implausibly good results in our studio tests that I have to go back and repeat everything, double checking all settings to make sure I haven't done something wrong. The Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro is one example; but in this case when I repeated the tests, the results were if anything slightly better."
~ DPReview

"The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for a macro lens and the Canon lens does truly shine here. Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far."
~ Photozone

I have a slight nuance to add. The difference is very small for the background quality of bokeh, but my non-IS version had noticeably better bokeh quality in the foreground. So when one's shooting style predominantly involves blurry foregrounds with lots of contrasty features (e.g. grass/twigs), one might reconsider. The bokeh of the non-IS version was already very nice, so it's hard to beat.

All-in-all, in my view as someone who owns both, it was worth the extra $$ to upgrade from the previous 100mm to the new IS 100mm.

Same here, but in the end I sold the non-IS version.

Another thing I noticed with the new model (although it might be due to the software), with Helicon Remote (for tethered focus stacking operation) I can drive the focus cam in finer increments. Again, it might be the software that chooses a different increment mode but it might be relevant for some users (maximizing the MTF response per pixel, requiring somewhat wider apertures to avoid diffraction).

Cheers,
Bart

[JohnKoerner]

Interesting addendum Bart.

I hadn't noticed a difference in foreground bokeh in mine (versus background); what I did notice was quite a noticeable difference in overall bokeh quality in general (which I am sure, in part, is also because I simultaneously upgraded from a 50D camera to a 7D).

Regarding the tethered focus stacking, I have never done this, but your observations in this regard are noted (and appreciated).

Thank you,

Jack

PS: My wording choice was poor in the previous post, but I sold my old 100mm also

[K.C.]

From someone who has actually used both (unlike K.C.), I believe the new lens is superior.

I have used both. But that's OK. You're need to be right exceeds mine.

If you want a Macro lens that also is great for portraits the Canon 180 makes either of the 100s pale by comparison.

[JohnKoerner]

I have used both. But that's OK.

When and for how long? Which lens do you have now? If you have/had both, why didn't you speak from personal experience originally, rather than refer to other discussions?

You're need to be right exceeds mine.

My ability to spell "your" correctly within the context of the above sentence also exceeds yours.

Regarding the merits of the new lens versus the old lens, the new 100mm macro simply is superior to the old one, in many respects, by all accounts and by all tests. At best, the old one merely "equals" the new lens in some respects, but in many other respects the old lens simply falls a bit short of the new.

Better MTF scores = better MTF scores. Better image stability (by up to 4 stops) = better image stability. Look up the word "tautology" (in the logical, not rhetorical, sense) when you get the chance, as it is the most basic principle of math and logic: A = A; better = better.

The only area where subjective opinion enters is whether or not it is "worth it" to make the switch. IMO, and in Bart's opinion, it was worth it. In your opinion, it clearly was not. Your statements that people such as we (who believe the upgrade to be worth it) "feel the need to defend the lens" are ridiculous. We simply feel that the upgrade was worth it. The real question is why do you "feel the need" to downplay the tested facts and our honest opinions as to our preference for the new lens?

The truth is, the new lens is superior to the old one in many respects, all of which have been measured and quantified with relatively-consistent results. The other truth is, regarding whether it is "worth" upgrading or not, in the end this is an entirely personal opinion. You have made your opinion known, so please allow us to make ours known. Ultimately, it will be up to the OP to make his own decision, based on his own wants and needs, all of which will be different from both yours and mine.

If you want a Macro lens that also is great for portraits the Canon 180 makes either of the 100s pale by comparison.

I am not sure this subjective opinion is supported by any tests or facts, but it is outside the discussion topic. Further, even if this were true, the asterisk to your statement would be ... provided you have the room to use it ...

Have a great one K.C.

Jack




.

[marcmccalmont]

I wasn't looking for a pissing contest just is it a better lens and was it worth the xtra $
It seems it is and it will be on my want list
Marc

[Canon Bob]

I shoot a lot of larger insects like butterflys, moths and damsels at half or one third of lifesize and find that the IS is helping me out but its affectiveness diminishes quickly when going to 1:1.  I ran both for 6 months (even have an old DC motor version too) and can't find any disadvantage to the L if price isn't an issue.

Bob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I shoot a lot of larger insects like butterflys, moths and damsels at half or one third of lifesize and find that the IS is helping me out but its affectiveness diminishes quickly when going to 1:1.

Indeed, but it may be useful to add that it's mostly due to the longer exposure times and huge magnification, rather than the IS itself. The difference in exposure time between 1:3 and 1:1 is already 2.25 x longer, and the magnification of any movement (camera or subject) is 3x as large. Macro is a specialism, and these lenses are great tools for those who know how to use them. I also find the AI Servo tracking a very useful feature for subjects that are swaying in the wind.

Cheers,
Bart

[Canon Bob]

Indeed, but it may be useful to add that it's mostly due to the longer exposure times and huge magnification, rather than the IS itself.

"Mostly" but the IS does assist with accurate focussing by providing a more stable subject in the viewfinder....again, more noticeable at half and third lifesize.

Bob

[alifatemi]

But what about comparing it with Zeiss Micro Planar100mm F2? whitch one is better? any experience comparing 2?

[JohnKoerner]

But what about comparing it with Zeiss Micro Planar100mm F2? whitch one is better? any experience comparing 2?

That is a much tougher question. The Zeiss f/2 100mm trumps the Canon f/2.8L 100 mm in several important respects, while the Canon L trumps the Zeiss in several others. Here's how they stack up:

Image Quality: Both outstanding
Bokeh: Both outstanding
Auto-Focus Capability: Canon
Image Stabilization: Canon
Build Quality: Zeiss
Manual Focus Precision: Zeiss
True 1:1 Macro Capability: Canon
Probable Longevity: Zeiss
Cost: Canon


The biggest reason I didn't buy the Zeiss was it isn't a true 1:1 macro lens (it's only 1:2), and the Zeiss didn't have any AF or IS at all, which wasn't suitable for my purposes.

However, the flipside to this is the fact the Canon's ability to manual focus (when critical MF is called for) is a joke compared to the Zeiss. In real numbers, you can go from closeup to infinity in a mere 180 degree turn of the wrist with the Canon, while it takes the Zeiss about 720 degrees of rotation to go from zero to infinity. In other words, the Zeiss is 4x more precise in the manual focus department than the Canon, and it just feels like a much higher-quality instrument in this regard also.

To answer your question, though, you'd need to question your own motives for getting a macro lens. If you always use a tripod, and if your subjects don't require true 1:1 magnification, and if your usual subjects stand still long enough for you to get absolutely perfect focus (and if your budget permits a ~$2000 lens), the Zeiss would be the clear choice. However, if you are out in the field alot, and if you shoot hand-held alot and could use the IS, and if you want to get true 1:1, and/or if many of your live capture opportunities will be fleeting and so you need a fast AF (rather than a slow and deliberate MF), then I would get the Canon, which is what I did.

As an owner of the Canon L lens, I love it for what it does, but I would be lying if I said I still don't have it in my head to go ahead and get the Zeiss too, for what it does (absolutely precise manual focus). As a side note, I heard a rumor awhile back that Zeiss was going to come up with a 200mm macro. If this lens ever comes into existence, and if it has true 1:1, I will do whatever it takes to get one for myself ... HOPING that it too has no AF, but the same precision MF capabilities of the 100mm version.

Anyway, for what it's worth regarding the subject question, that is my $0.02 ...

Hope this helps,

Jack




.

[alifatemi]

Thanks Jack a lot! but let you know I have just heard that with Zeiss, its difficult to focus near infinity because of small margin between 10m and infinity on the focus ring. is it true? and is it also true that Zeiss color rendition is different as some claims that is far more beautiful(natural/neutral?)?