Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro L IS: Depth of field chart wanted

I have found a depth of field chart for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro
lens but have been unable to find one for the Image Stabilization
version of this lens. Would DOF of these lenses be the same? If not, I
would appreciate it if someone can direct me to it. Thanks.

Don

On 23/01/2011 18:09, Don Tuttle wrote:
I have found a depth of field chart for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro
lens but have been unable to find one for the Image Stabilization
version of this lens. Would DOF of these lenses be the same? If not, I
would appreciate it if someone can direct me to it. Thanks.

Don

DOF wouldn't be affected by image stabilisation, it just enables the use
of a faster shutter speed/lower ISO than might otherwise be practical
given the subject and lighting.

Mike

On 01/23/2011 07:09 PM, Don Tuttle wrote:
I have found a depth of field chart for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro
lens but have been unable to find one for the Image Stabilization
version of this lens. Would DOF of these lenses be the same? If not, I
would appreciate it if someone can direct me to it. Thanks.

Is the chart for a full-frame or for an APS-C sensor? IS isn't relevant...

--
Bertrand

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:09:10 -0500, Don Tuttle wrote:
: I have found a depth of field chart for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro
: lens but have been unable to find one for the Image Stabilization
: version of this lens. Would DOF of these lenses be the same? If not, I
: would appreciate it if someone can direct me to it. Thanks.

The DOF chart reflects the theoretical resolving power of the lens at a given
distance and aperture. It assumes absolute stability of the lens. All the
image stabilizer can do is try to keep you from losing that resolving power by
compensating for lens shake that you introduce.

Note that if the camera is mounted on a stable tripod with no wind or ground
shake to make it move, you might as well turn the stabilizer off, since
there's nothing that it can do to help.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:

Note that if the camera is mounted on a stable tripod with no wind or
ground shake to make it move, you might as well turn the stabilizer off,
since there's nothing that it can do to help.

Except perhaps with mirror slap.

Thanks for responses.
These lenses have differences other than IS: for example different
filter, minimum focal length, view angle, and lens construction (one
has 12 elements in 8 groups the other 15 elements in 12 groups).
I don't know what causes different depths of field or whether any of
these differences in the lenses would result in different DOF, but if
they or other differences might, I would still like to locate DOF chart
for the IS model. Thanks for help.
Don

On 01/24/2011 03:31 AM, Don Tuttle wrote:
Thanks for responses.
These lenses have differences other than IS: for example different
filter, minimum focal length, view angle, and lens construction (one
has 12 elements in 8 groups the other 15 elements in 12 groups).
I don't know what causes different depths of field or whether any of
these differences in the lenses would result in different DOF, but if
they or other differences might, I would still like to locate DOF chart
for the IS model. Thanks for help.

Compute it yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#Close-up

--
Bertrand

In article , Ofnuts
wrote:

On 01/24/2011 03:31 AM, Don Tuttle wrote:
Thanks for responses.
These lenses have differences other than IS: for example different
filter, minimum focal length, view angle, and lens construction (one
has 12 elements in 8 groups the other 15 elements in 12 groups).
I don't know what causes different depths of field or whether any of
these differences in the lenses would result in different DOF, but if
they or other differences might, I would still like to locate DOF chart
for the IS model. Thanks for help.

Compute it yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#Close-up


Thanks for all help. I got an iPad app that calculates depth of field
for combinations of variables.

don

don tuttle wrote:

Thanks for all help. I got an iPad app that calculates depth of field
for combinations of variables.

You know that DoF is just one part of the sharpness story? Most people
realise pretty soon that it fails to deliver on the promise. To get the full
picture, you'd also have to take into account diffraction and object field
resolution.

On 01/26/2011 10:38 AM, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:36:30 -0500, don
wrote:
Thanks for all help. I got an iPad app that calculates depth of field
for combinations of variables.


So do you carry that awkward, bulky and fundamentally useless device
with you every time you go shooting pictures?


There is also a J2ME app, that runs on Symbian (and likely Android)
phones, including my el-cheapo Nokia:

http://www.jibble.org/dofcalc/

--
Bertrand