Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

I have a Canon EOS 550D and am considering the EFS 60mm F2.8 macro
lens. It does not have image stabilization.
How foolish is it to buy a macro lens without image stabilization?
Thanks.
Don

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:53:56 -0400, don tuttle
wrote:

I have a Canon EOS 550D and am considering the EFS 60mm F2.8 macro
lens. It does not have image stabilization.
How foolish is it to buy a macro lens without image stabilization?
Thanks.
Don


People got by a long time with macro lenses before stabilization came
out. They worked satisfactorily. I like stabilization, I am now old
and my hands are not as steady as they once were. Will you be doing
mostly hand held shots, or is a tripod in your future? Stabilization
doesn't help much for shooting desert wildflowers in the wind.

don tuttle wrote:
I have a Canon EOS 550D and am considering the EFS 60mm F2.8 macro
lens. It does not have image stabilization.
How foolish is it to buy a macro lens without image stabilization?

I don't have IS on my 100mm f/2.8 and don't miss it. For extreme
macro stuff, I stop down enough that I can't hand hold it anyway.
I guess it depends on how you're going to use it. I found that
the purchase I enjoyed most for macro stuff was a cheap ring
flash.

Mike Beede

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:53:56 -0400, don tuttle
wrote:

I have a Canon EOS 550D and am considering the EFS 60mm F2.8 macro
lens. It does not have image stabilization.
How foolish is it to buy a macro lens without image stabilization?
Thanks.
Don


Having never owned a macro lens WITH image stabilization,I'd have to
say "not at all."

"don tuttle" wrote in message
...
I have a Canon EOS 550D and am considering the EFS 60mm F2.8 macro
lens. It does not have image stabilization.
How foolish is it to buy a macro lens without image stabilization?

I've got two macro lenses without stabilisation. For most macro shots you
need a flash and a tripod, which pretty much negates stabilisation anyway.
Or you are more worried about subject movement in some cases.

Trevor.

One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
bodies...
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
bodies...
--

Alfred Molon

... because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of the
image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors. Note that
Nikon also use in-lens IS, as to Leica/Panasonic for their well-respected
compact cameras.

Cheers,
David

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"David J Taylor" wrote in
message ...
One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
bodies...
.. because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of
the image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors.


And not forgetting they can charge significantly more for the lenses.
Check out the price differences of the popular 70-200L IS versus the non
IS equivalents for example.

Canon seem to be quoted as doing this more often than Nikon. The price
Nikon charge for IS lenses which I buy (not the top end of the range) seem
not unreasonable to me.

And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also
use many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having
the option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds
for wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you
could afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses
you still wish to use).

Having the option could be useful, I suppose, but I'm not convinced. More
likely I would end up with both lens- and body-IS enabled, and make things
worse rather than better! I think all my lenses have IS/VR except the
10-24 mm zoom and the 35 mm f/1.8. As the latter is for low-light
working, IS might be sensible for it.

But I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for Canon or Nikon to provide in
body IS/VR :-(
Would have been nice if Canon copied Olympus like they did with the
ultrasonic sensor cleaning, but I sure didn't expect them to, so wasn't
disappointed. At least they have started to offer things like sensor
cleaning, and adjustable displays on some models now, so who knows,
maybe in a decade or two :-)

Trevor.

LOL! Yes, perhaps. I'll not hold my breath!

David

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
bodies...
.. because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of the
image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors.


And not forgetting they can charge significantly more for the lenses. Check
out the price differences of the popular 70-200L IS versus the non IS
equivalents for example.
And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also use
many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having the
option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds for
wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you could
afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses you still
wish to use).
But I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for Canon or Nikon to provide in body
IS/VR :-(
Would have been nice if Canon copied Olympus like they did with the
ultrasonic sensor cleaning, but I sure didn't expect them to, so wasn't
disappointed. At least they have started to offer things like sensor
cleaning, and adjustable displays on some models now, so who knows, maybe in
a decade or two :-)

Trevor.

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
Canon seem to be quoted as doing this more often than Nikon. The price
Nikon charge for IS lenses which I buy (not the top end of the range) seem
not unreasonable to me.

Wel the price on the couple of IS kit lenses Canon make is reasonable too,
if that's all you are after. The rest have BIG differences.


And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also
use many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having
the option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds
for wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you
could afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses you
still wish to use).

Having the option could be useful, I suppose, but I'm not convinced. More
likely I would end up with both lens- and body-IS enabled, and make things
worse rather than better!


Would be VERY easy for the camera to disable in-body IS if in-lens IS was
engaged. Although I see some lens manufacturers claim that both can be used
together. Not owning such a camera I can't say if they will work together,
against each other, or a mixture depending on conditions.
But I'd prefer the option in any case.

I think all my lenses have IS/VR except the 10-24 mm zoom and the 35 mm
f/1.8. As the latter is for low-light working, IS might be sensible for
it.

And the 10-24 as well since it needs a slower shutter speed more often! And
would even like it on the 50mm f1.4, and especially the 200 f2.8. But ALL my
non IS primes in fact!

Trevor.