Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens IS VS NON IS

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

05/05/2016 01:41:32 AM · #1

I am considering buying my first macro lens and quite like what I have read about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

I plan to use it mainly for macro though if it gives me a bit more reach than my 85mm for some animal portraits then that would be great too.

I will be using this on a crop sensor (70D) and don't really have any plans to upgrade to full frame in the immediate future.

So I am faced with the decision whether to splash out the extra for the IS version or save my pennies and get the Non-IS version.

I don't tend to use a tripod much but do have one. I haven't done much macro photography so perhaps I need to start using the tripod more if I do however I quite like the idea of photographing insects so not sure if a tripod will always be on hand when I meet these little critters.

Anyway I would appreciate any thoughts on this decision from you lovely people:)

Tiberius

05/05/2016 01:59:35 AM · #2

I had the NON. I loved it. It was stolen together with other gear.

Later I bought the IS version. I terms of quality they are pretty equal. I had the same dilemma but I went in the end for the IS and do not regret. It's not only a macro and the IS gives a big advantage if you use it for low light, be it street, portrait in low / natural light etc. If cash is not a big issue go for it. If saving is important then you can't go wrong with the old one.

The IS is also the new type.

Edit: maybe this helps

Cheers

T

Message edited by author 2016-05-05 06:02:14.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

05/05/2016 03:33:10 AM · #3

Thank you Tiberius - that is really helpful.

The IS does look rather nice indeed and certainly helps nudge me towards the more expensive option.

Been really happy with my Canon 85mm 1.8 that doesn't have IS but then again this is not for macro and also it is 1.8 and not 2.8.

Thanks for the link too - a good review.

Cheers

Paul

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

05/05/2016 04:14:55 AM · #4

For a lot of macro work a tripod is really not an option, so the stabilization is a really big benefit. I owned the non-IS for years and loved it, but I have to say that I am glad that I made the jump to the IS version. Now, the real debate becomes whether the additional $$$ for the IS version might be better used on a macro flash... that is a tough question, but if you're handy you can make standard flash serve the purpose with a little ingenuity.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/05/2016 05:11:01 AM · #5

When I was shooting Canon I had the IS version on the 5D2, and we had the non-IS, 60mm on the 70D, the cropped-sensor camera. The difference was like night and day. There should be no question in your mind. IS is invaluable for hand-held macro work, especially Canon's sophisticated version of it that they debuted in that lens.

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

05/05/2016 05:18:24 AM · #6

Well I am left with very little doubt after the two of you (Kirbic and Robert) have chirped in. Thank you for helping me cement my decision and empty my wallet:)

PennyStreet

Olympus OM-D E-M1

05/05/2016 05:39:53 AM · #7

I love that lens. You will too. You'll see:)

pgirish007

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II

05/05/2016 06:43:43 AM · #8

I have Non-IS version and I loved it except that most of the time for macro shot I am using tripod, so now with handheld would IS help? not sure as I am not yet hit to that situation but again to me $s matter.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

05/05/2016 06:59:51 AM · #9

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

...Thank you for helping me cement my decision and empty my wallet:)

Always glad to help spend money, LOL. Damn that G.A.S.!

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

05/05/2016 02:09:45 PM · #10

Drifting slightly off topic, how does the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro EX DG OS compare? I really don't want to pay the price of the Canon but I must have stabilisation. I'm a bit torn between buying the Sigma for my 7D or buying the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro for my OMD. A big plus for the Canon would be that I've already got extension tubes so I'd be able to get really close, but the negative is that I hardly ever take my 7D anywhere because it's so heavy.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

05/05/2016 03:19:35 PM · #11

Unless you think that you get much better picture quality from a larger sensored camera, which is not the case from m43 to APS-C, getting either the Sigma, or Canon (IS or not) makes no sense at all. In macro photography a smaller sensor is a big benefit. Compare sizes and weights, prices, and the fact that Olympus 5-axis IS beats IS in any Canon lens then the choice should be obvious. And if you're doing macro outdoors then you'd better be sure to have a windless day otherwise IS may not make any difference at all. The Em-5 also has the tilting LCD screen, another benefit for macro photography, although with less resolution compared with the 7D which is fixed. Cheap extension tubes can be gotten from third party companies like Fotodiox and although they don't have electronic connections for autofocus you should be shooting in manual mode anyway which an EVF is a big benefit for. An Oly shooter on this web site who used to shoot Canon says that the Oly 60 is the best macro lens he's ever used.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

05/05/2016 04:14:32 PM · #12

Non-IS + Strobe = great.
IS = less need for strobe. Still, with moving subjects like bugs, you'll definately need flash. I suggest a radio trigger and hold the flash in your opposite hand, with a SBIII modifier.

Message edited by author 2016-05-05 20:15:13.

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

05/05/2016 05:01:21 PM · #13

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Thanks. I'm really tempted to go that way. I imagine I'll get more use out of the Olympus lens because I'm more likely to have it with me when I want it.

My one issue with micro four-thirds has always been the fact that my hands aren't very steady and I tend to get more camera shake in my photos than I do when I use my Canon. But so far that hasn't been enough to make me revert to carrying the heavier camera around with me, so buying new lenses to use with it probably isn't the best idea.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

05/05/2016 07:20:36 PM · #14

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Unless you think that you get much better picture quality from a larger sensored camera, which is not the case from m43 to APS-C, getting either the Sigma, or Canon (IS or not) makes no sense at all. In macro photography a smaller sensor is a big benefit. Compare sizes and weights, prices, and the fact that Olympus 5-axis IS beats IS in any Canon lens then the choice should be obvious. And if you're doing macro outdoors then you'd better be sure to have a windless day otherwise IS may not make any difference at all. The Em-5 also has the tilting LCD screen, another benefit for macro photography, although with less resolution compared with the 7D which is fixed. Cheap extension tubes can be gotten from third party companies like Fotodiox and although they don't have electronic connections for autofocus you should be shooting in manual mode anyway which an EVF is a big benefit for. An Oly shooter on this web site who used to shoot Canon says that the Oly 60 is the best macro lens he's ever used.

Thanks. I'm really tempted to go that way. I imagine I'll get more use out of the Olympus lens because I'm more likely to have it with me when I want it.

My one issue with micro four-thirds has always been the fact that my hands aren't very steady and I tend to get more camera shake in my photos than I do when I use my Canon. But so far that hasn't been enough to make me revert to carrying the heavier camera around with me, so buying new lenses to use with it probably isn't the best idea.

I would have thought the Oly IS would have taken care of that but maybe you need the extra weight and bulk of the Canon, or are your shutter speeds just too slow from stopping down too far for any IS to compensate for? You could try adding the oly power grip for the former issue and see if that helps, but it is a bit expensive. Settings can also be adjusted for the latter.

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

05/06/2016 01:23:55 AM · #15

Before I make my final decision, I am getting concerned macro photography may be more trickier than I had hoped. I was hoping to be able to take macro photos of insects like bees and butterflies etc handheld and figure a dedicated macro lens would offer me a significant advantage over what my current lenses can offer.

I have the following:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I did take this photo with my 85mm handheld which I quite like and it is probably the closest I have come to a macro insect shot

Would a 100mm Macro IS lens have offered me much of an improvement on taking a photo like this handheld?

It is quite a bit expenditure so want to make sure I am going to get a lot from this lens otherwise I would probably sway for a 300mm f4 prime - I could then try and take photos of deer and rabbits:)

Tiberius

05/06/2016 02:50:25 AM · #16

That's a close up. The macro will let you go way closer. Now I'm not sure if it will convince the bug to stay... but you get it :)

Message edited by author 2016-05-06 09:35:15.

05/06/2016 03:06:01 AM · #17

Originally posted by Tiberius:

That's a close up. The macro will let you go way closer. Now I'm not if it will convince the bug to stay... but you get it :)

Haha OK that is the answer I wanted to hear - thank you sir:)

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

05/06/2016 04:06:11 AM · #18

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Unless you think that you get much better picture quality from a larger sensored camera, which is not the case from m43 to APS-C, getting either the Sigma, or Canon (IS or not) makes no sense at all. In macro photography a smaller sensor is a big benefit. Compare sizes and weights, prices, and the fact that Olympus 5-axis IS beats IS in any Canon lens then the choice should be obvious. And if you're doing macro outdoors then you'd better be sure to have a windless day otherwise IS may not make any difference at all. The Em-5 also has the tilting LCD screen, another benefit for macro photography, although with less resolution compared with the 7D which is fixed. Cheap extension tubes can be gotten from third party companies like Fotodiox and although they don't have electronic connections for autofocus you should be shooting in manual mode anyway which an EVF is a big benefit for. An Oly shooter on this web site who used to shoot Canon says that the Oly 60 is the best macro lens he's ever used.

Thanks. I'm really tempted to go that way. I imagine I'll get more use out of the Olympus lens because I'm more likely to have it with me when I want it.

My one issue with micro four-thirds has always been the fact that my hands aren't very steady and I tend to get more camera shake in my photos than I do when I use my Canon. But so far that hasn't been enough to make me revert to carrying the heavier camera around with me, so buying new lenses to use with it probably isn't the best idea.

I would have thought the Oly IS would have taken care of that but maybe you need the extra weight and bulk of the Canon, or are your shutter speeds just too slow from stopping down too far for any IS to compensate for? You could try adding the oly power grip for the former issue and see if that helps, but it is a bit expensive. Settings can also be adjusted for the latter.

I think the former is more of an issue than the latter. I really don't want to lay out extra money for the power grip, so maybe the Canon really is the better option. Another advantage of the Canon is the longer focal length. I'd have to get quite a bit closer to bugs if I was shooting with the 60mm, even taking the crop factor into account - minimum focus distance 31cm on the Sigma compared to 19cm on the Oly.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/06/2016 05:34:33 AM · #19

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

I'd have to get quite a bit closer to bugs if I was shooting with the 60mm, even taking the crop factor into account - minimum focus distance 31cm on the Sigma compared to 19cm on the Oly.

Remember, the minimum focal length is measured from the sensor plane to the subject. The 100mm lens is considerably longer than the 60mm, so that cuts into a fair amount of the "extra distance". We found this out when comparing the 60mm to the 100mm on the Canons...

insteps

Ricoh GR III

Fujifilm XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR

05/06/2016 05:43:49 AM · #20

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I'd have to get quite a bit closer to bugs if I was shooting with the 60mm, even taking the crop factor into account - minimum focus distance 31cm on the Sigma compared to 19cm on the Oly.

Remember, the minimum focal length is measured from the sensor plane to the subject. The 100mm lens is considerably longer than the 60mm, so that cuts into a fair amount of the "extra distance". We found this out when comparing the 60mm to the 100mm on the Canons...

Also remember 60mm on Micro 43 is equivalent to ~120mm on a DSLR. I'm sure most understand this but it's an important factor when making this decision.

Tiberius

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

05/06/2016 06:34:38 AM · #21

It's an excellent cat lens as well :)

Message edited by author 2016-05-06 10:34:46.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/06/2016 12:18:10 PM · #22

get the IS, you often aren't working with a while lot of light when you stop a lens down to get the DOF you need, your shutter speeds will suffer and that means about 1/160 min on a crop body, i know I cant handhold that.

Message edited by author 2016-05-06 16:18:34.