Anybody use the new 100 2.8 IS L Macro yet?

Candid Arts

Just wondering. I'm lusting over it, but just purchased the MP-E 65. So Once I get another $700 saved up, I'll sell my 100 2.8 and get this one.

Just wanted to see some sample photos from it.

Lord Vetinari

Candid Arts wrote:

Just wondering. I'm lusting over it, but just purchased the MP-E 65. So Once I get another $700 saved up, I'll sell my 100 2.8 and get this one.

Just wanted to see some sample photos from it.

thread here with some http://photocamel.com/forum/macro-close-up-photography/90070-canon-7d-100-2-8l-macro.html

Candid Arts

Lord Vetinari wrote:

thread here with some http://photocamel.com/forum/macro-close-up-photography/90070-canon-7d-100-2-8l-macro.html

Wow. This is most certainly my next purchase...unless I can afford the 5DIII when it comes out... Those are TACK sharp... Very lovely.

jax

Candid Arts wrote:

Wow. This is most certainly my next purchase...

Really? I'm not impressed at all with this lens. Sure, having IS is nice. When you shoot static subjects that is, but what happens when your bugs move around?. And an 'L' lens? The old version didn't have a red band near the front of the lens so Canon couldn't stamp it 'L' quality (unless they did some real redesign on the lens), but quality wise it was an L nonetheless. I'm not convinced from looking at the images on photocamel.com (for as far ast this is possible on reduced size images) that sharpness has improved. I'd love to see a old versus new lens test, but I bet no one will be able to tell them apart based on image sharpness.

But then again, as someone else mentioned on another forum, Canon knows it's customers. They want L lenses, no matter what. So, paint a red band on it, stick an L label on, double it's price and it will likely become a hit .

Lord Vetinari

jax wrote:

Really? I'm not impressed at all with this lens. Sure, having IS is nice. When you shoot static subjects that is, but what happens when your bugs move around?. And an 'L' lens? The old version didn't have a red band near the front of the lens so Canon couldn't stamp it 'L' quality (unless they did some real redesign on the lens), but quality wise it was an L nonetheless. I'm not convinced from looking at the images on photocamel.com (for as far ast this is possible on reduced size images) that sharpness has improved. I'd love to see a old versus new lens test, but I bet no one will be able to tell them apart based on image sharpness.

But then again, as someone else mentioned on another forum, Canon knows it's customers. They want L lenses, no matter what. So, paint a red band on it, stick an L label on, double it's price and it will likely become a hit .

I very much doubt absolute sharpness is much different. The main thing would be the ability to take natural light macros handheld around 1/30th to 1/50th sec. Have to admit I'm not that interested as apart from the cost I always use MF and tend to focus bracket shots by taking shots as I move through the focus points - hate to think what IS would make of that.
Brian v.

paddler4

Quote:

jax wrote:

Really? I'm not impressed at all with this lens. Sure, having IS is nice. When you shoot static subjects that is, but what happens when your bugs move around?. And an 'L' lens? The old version didn't have a red band near the front of the lens so Canon couldn't stamp it 'L' quality (unless they did some real redesign on the lens), but quality wise it was an L nonetheless. I'm not convinced from looking at the images on photocamel.com (for as far ast this is possible on reduced size images) that sharpness has improved. I'd love to see a old versus new lens test, but I bet no one will be able to tell them apart based on image sharpness.

But then again, as someone else mentioned on another forum, Canon knows it's customers. They want L lenses, no matter what. So, paint a red band on it, stick an L label on, double it's price and it will likely become a hit .

Well, I am considering one, and the L label and red ring have nothing to do with it. I would pay $0 for those. I have purchased 5 lenses so far, none L, and was intending to buy the non-IS 100mm macro when this one came onto market.

Subject motion and camera motion are not mutually exclusive. Even when bugs move around, my hands still do, and macro makes that problem all the worse. If I could get the old 100 with IS, I would jump at the chance. As it is, I have to decide whether IS is worth an extra $500. for people with steadier hands, the decision may be easier.

Ekaj

IS is useless for shots approaching 1:1. I don't understand why camera makers are making macro lenses with IS. In fact I would say a lens without IS is superior because it is lighter weight.

GOLDENORFE

it will really depend on what you intend shooting, but my recent butterfly shots are shot with 70-300 is and it makes a slight difference only, subject movement overides any advantage it may provide as high shutter speed still needed to freeze movement.
i would say buy standard 100 and good flash system
phil

Candid Arts

I like the IS on the new macro because of this:

I use the 100 2.8 macro as a portrait lens as well as a macro. SO having the IS will help with that. Don't really need it for macro as you said, but this lens is so sharp at a wide range of distance to subject distances, that it works great as a portrait lens. SO THERE is why IS is awesome on this lens.

paddler4

OK, now I am confused. Phil, I can see why you got the results you did: angular shake should matter more as the distance to subject increases (the vertical displacement of the subject for a given angular displacement will increase). That is the shake that most IS systems correct for. But the new 100mm corrects also for "shift camera shake", which is motion parallel to the focal plane. Logically, shouldn't the impact of shift camera shake increase as distance to subject decreases?