When looking at the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM the biggest differentiation is the included image stabilization(also the MTF chart, and "L" designation). How useful or important is having image stabilization in a 100mm macro actually in use? Specifically, when would I find it a benefit to actually getting a shot? I am looking for specific examples in use such as outdoors, indoors, bugs, flowers, tripod, no tripod, etc.
From the little I know about macro photography, I understood that when you are at the minimum focusing distance, the effective maximum aperture is decreased, if that is the case does that mean that IS is actually more useful on a macro lens?
Answer
I have the 100/2.8L, and I would highly recommend it. It uses a new type of IS that is really helpful at close subject distances. Traditional IS starts to lose effectiveness as the distance to subject decreases. The new IS on this lens compensates not only for angular movement but also for shifting.
Don't expect 4 stops at macro distances, though. I'd say it helps with about 1 stop. But that's 1 stop more than any other lens. :) For subjects at normal distances, I see close to a 4-stop improvement.
You're also getting better optics for the extra money, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment