« on: February 08, 2012, 09:35:22 PM »
That's absolutely not true. I've got the 100L a while ago and I love it (and I'm not rich), the IS helps A LOT, you can take handled macro shots without problems.
Admittedly, "rich" is a relative defintion. But anyway: Of course everybody loves their expensive lenses. But I've got many shots like yours and better with my non-L lens, handheld too. Which t did you do this shot with? Of course, without a tripod the dof is too thin in any case, you cannot see the see the tiny insect eyes on the eye facing the lens.
But this isn't a picture contest - the question is: did you try to shoot the same object with IS, then with IS disabled? If so, you propably would come to the same conclusion as comparison tests on the usual websites: IS does not help macro distances.
i've tried (not on the same object) with both IS and without, that's why i'm saying that handled macro is immensely better with the IS, but again as I said it depends on what kind of use of that lens he will do... I haven't posted that picture to say "look at my big expensive lens shots quality", "i'm amazing", "bow down" etc., I'm only an amateur and i do it as an hobby, it was only to show what kind of shot you can take with an IS without any effort (i really took that as a point & shoot picture)...
Of course when you want to take some pro macro shots a tripod is mandatory but for people like me that does it as an (expensive) hobby and doesn't always walk around with a tripod, flashes etc. the IS is incredibly helpful, I haven't even bought a flash yet, you get 3 stops improvements.
I also like to use it as a portrait lens and in any case the IS is always a good addition.
ps. sorry i don't know what you mean with "Which t did you do this shot with"...