Hi Ken, I have both the EF 100 f2.8 macro and the EF28-135 IS USM. Last summer whilst walking in the Italian Dolomites I chose to only carry the 28-135 and the Sigma 15-35. With the IS engaged, at closest distance & at 135 I managed to get quite pleasing hand-held shots of Alpine flowers in their natural habitat. We were under a heavy rain cloud and exposures increased to as long as 1/22, 1/30 and thereabouts at full aperture, f5.6. Most shots were adequately sharp.
I think adding IS to a macro is a marvellous idea. Quite often macro work in the wild pushes tripod use to its limits and optional IS to deal with tripod vibration would be a boon. M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:58 PM Subject: EOS What about an IS Macro? > What do you people think about the idea of an Image Stabilized Macro > lens? Seems like an excellent candidate - either the 100 or the 180. > I do a lot of macro shooting, and with the small f/stops and slow film > frequently required I find myself shooting at shutter speeds between > 1/8 and 1/60 all the time - perfect IS range. With the odd angles > often required to get close to weird stuff, it sure would be nice to > not always require a tripod. Doesn't this idea make sense? What > downsides am I missing, besides the cost? > > > Ken Durling * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
