Paying for IS in Macro

[photog1107]

I debated whether to toss this into the Canon equipment section or Macro, but decided the macro folks might have better experience on this question. (If the mods prefer, i am happy to switch categories, however.)

Question is this: when evaluating a new macro lens how much priority should one put on IS? I am looking at two 100mm Canon macros--one with IS and one without. Price is roughly double for IS. I have several IS lenses, so I understand the benefit... but with macro shooting, I have always heard "turn the IS off" to eliminate motor vibration. Plus, the best results are going to come from a tripod, cable release, etc., anyway, so hand held is not really an issue. So isn't purchasing a top-notch macro lens with IS sort of counterintuitive?

I want the best quality lens, but sure don't need to pay twice the cost for something I won't--or shouldn't--use. Any opinions out there on the subject?

[Murtasma]

I thought about the very same thing you're talking about here. Personally I would go with the non IS version if you plan to do the majority of your shooting using a tripod and cable release. I think a macro flash would be a better investment instead of IS if you primarily want to use the lens for Macro. work. Now if you want to use the lens as a portrait lens as well that may change things. The image quality of the 100mm is very good. I believe from reviews I've read the IS version is slightly better (personally not worth the money a macro flash will allow you take take better macro images in worse situations than the IS would allow).

[ceremus]

It's really wholly dependent on how much you're going to be shooting hand held vs how much you're going to be working with a tripod. If much of your macro shots will be on the tripod then IS won't give you much benefit, and some things are going to require a tripod, such as a very narrow aperture with a longer exposure, or the focus stacking technique (both of which you'll probably want if you're trying to get a longer depth of field).

[inkista]

The thing is the price difference between the Canon Macro 100 and the Canon Macro 100 L is more than just the IS. The L designation means that the red-ringed lens has used some form of exotic glass in it for additional contrast and C/A correction.

Here's the block diagram for the non-L:


And for the L:


The purple element is UD (ultra-low dispersion) glass, the red box is the IS unit. Also note, there's one new element in the middle, and two additional elements at the back of the lens for more correction. This is a similar design to the non-L, but tweaked with those changes. And the performance gains are there.

If you look at the MTF charts:

Non-L

L:

the L version of the lens is clearly sharper across the frame, insanely sharp stopped down to f/8, and a tiny bit smoother bokeh. (Yes, you can tell all this from an MTF chart. You really should learn to read them. Follow the link I gave above.)

In addition to this, the IS of the Macro 100L is supposed to be able to correct in two axes, which is the main reason that regular IS doesn't do much for macro shooting; it's supposed to help with not only up/down and side-to-side, but also with tilting shake. Whether it actually does this or makes enough of a difference to matter (since back-to-front shifting still isn't addressed), though, is a matter that's debated.

And I do agree, if you're using a tripod and a cable release, whether or not the IS works great is moot, because you probably don't need it. But if you want to go handheld, then it becomes a factor.