IBIS is coming to select next generation Canon DSLRs [CR2]

pj1974

EOS 7D MK II
Oct 18, 2011
593
56
Adelaide, Australia
Cool! How does it compare to the non L version? I’ve heard people say its on par sharpness wise but contrast is better. I’d certainly appreciate the weather sealing though!
I owned the Canon 100mm USM f/2.8 macro (non L) for about 7 years. It is a good lens, very sharp where it needs to be, great for macro use, and good balance of size/weight. Then about 2 years ago I bought the L version, and after owning both for several months, I sold my non-L on (as a 2nd hand). I only lost about $200 AUD for 7 years use, which I'm perfectly fine with.

The 2 main reasons I upgraded to L are:
  1. more suitable as an event lens, for candids / portraits (to complement my 50mm f/1.8 STM). The non-L's AF is no where near as reliable for non-portrait work compared to the L. I can confirm this with 2 copies of the non-L, and using 4 different Canon DSLRs. AF is both faster and more accurate with the L. The L version AF locks on 90% of times at non-macro focal distances. The non-L got close about 70% of the time, but it was regularly not tack sharp, and would be quite off about 30% of the time. Image Stabilisation (IS) also helps for a lot of the event photography I do.
  2. Image Stabilisation (IS) is really handy for some macro images (either at, or close to 1:1 magnification). I use a tripod for most of my 'really serious' macro work, but at times there are close-up and macro photos I want to capture where a tripod won't work (or I don't have time / or I'm hiking). So the IS really does help in certain macro images quite a lot.

I use a (cheap, but very effective) filter mounted (screw-on) led macro light. Bought it for about $20 from Hong Kong/China years ago. As that came with various filter sizes, my macro light works just as well on both lenses.

Where Canon's non-L and L 100mm macro lenses were fairly similar are:
  • sharpness and overall image quality (perhaps a touch more sharpness to the L at certain apertures),
  • bokeh (though a bit better on the L),
  • size and weight (no big difference, but I prefer the non-L - size/weight as it's smaller / slightly lighter)
  • manual focus throw, from my experience, both work fairly similarly at macro levels

The non-L can be had very cheaply - on the 2nd hand market, and a few years ago, stock in stores. If either or both of the 2 reasons that I listed above are important to others, that may be motivation to upgrade. Weather sealing and build quality on the L is notably better, but the non-L isn't a slouch either. I've used it in various conditions, and it held up well, but yes, did end up showing the expected amount of wear and tear after almost a decade of quite regular use, but it wasn't much, as I'm careful with my gear.

Cheers

PJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
107
79
UK
Thanks for the info!

I think you’ve convinced me! The main subject I use my 100mm for is frogs, reptiles and things like that so IS would be the biggest reason for me, along with the weather sealing. I’d miss my old 100mm though. I’ve had it the longest of all my current equipment and it’s taken some of my favourite images!

Cheers!
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: Quirkz and pj1974

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
668
293
don't all recent Canon cameras have the sensor dust removal feature upon startup and shutdown of the camera, which already moves the sensor w.r.t. the body in current models...?

It's just tiny ultrasonic vibration. I don't think the sensor is mechanically coupled to the chassis.
Only the filter stack in front of the sensor moves in current Canon DSLRs. The sensor is, in fact, coupled to the chassis.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
668
293
I am convinced the upcoming 90D (or whatever it gets called) is going to be the head scratcher. It is going to be the trial ground for new tech...new sensor, IBIS, might even put the R mount on a mirrored camera (would the APS-C sensor accept the new flange distance?). The R mount still has some new connections we need to learn about, could be related to the combined stabilization.

Here is hoping it all comes together into a great package!
Nope. The mirror for a 16mm tall sensor must be 22.62 mm in height. That does not leave room for the mirror to swing up flush with the top of the light box with a 20mm flange distance. The mirror would be protruding 2.62mm beyond the flange.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,017
1,469
Canada
Keyboard warriors call it crippling, Manufacturers call it differentiating. Crippling always makes me think that the complainer wants all or most high end features in a low end sale. Do you get pissed at the Ford Dealer that the Focus doesn't have the features of the Mustang?

I know, I know, all you want is a mic jack right?
I don’t understand why any camera with Bluetooth would not support Bluetooth speakers/headphones/microphone
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
843
242
Turku, Finland
Only the filter stack in front of the sensor moves in current Canon DSLRs. The sensor is, in fact, coupled to the chassis.
Huh, that's what I meant, and I *think* that's what I originally wrote, and then edited out a confusing double negative there, but in the process ended up inverting the meaning :unsure:
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,017
1,469
Canada
While my sarcasm detector is reading "Maybe", I do like your way of thinking, supporting BT mics would be very handy.
Definitely not sarcasm.

I have several pairs of Bluetooth headphones, including a very nice pair with hard shells, lots of noise reduction, and active noise cancellation. When you shoot video at a musical performance it is nice to hear what the camera is recording, particularly on all those cameras that do not have a headphone jack, plus, I HATE BEING TETHERED TO THE CAMERA!

Bluetooth speakers has to be the lowest hanging fruit on the Bluetooth tree. Canon are not alone at having missed this one..... and if they can do a speaker, then they can do a mic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

koenkooi

EOS RP
Feb 25, 2015
347
197
Definitely not sarcasm.

I have several pairs of Bluetooth headphones, including a very nice pair with hard shells, lots of noise reduction, and active noise cancellation. When you shoot video at a musical performance it is nice to hear what the camera is recording, particularly on all those cameras that do not have a headphone jack, plus, I HATE BEING TETHERED TO THE CAMERA!

Bluetooth speakers has to be the lowest hanging fruit on the Bluetooth tree. Canon are not alone at having missed this one..... and if they can do a speaker, then they can do a mic.
Bluetooth audio is one of the harder things to get right, but it is a purely software matter. My former coworkers are happy with the billable hours it generates in the automotive world :)

The big issue with speakers is that the decent quality codecs have a lot of latency on both ends, so AV sync is hard. The hands free protocol is better (duh, that's what it's for), but has a noticably worse quality.
 

Quirkz

EOS 80D
Oct 30, 2014
129
47
Bluetooth audio is one of the harder things to get right, but it is a purely software matter. My former coworkers are happy with the billable hours it generates in the automotive world :)

The big issue with speakers is that the decent quality codecs have a lot of latency on both ends, so AV sync is hard. The hands free protocol is better (duh, that's what it's for), but has a noticably worse quality.
Not just that, but the better codecs require licensing, adding $$. Which is why many cheap Bluetooth headsets sound like crap