I received this email from Scotch Macaskill:
Hi Denise,
I’ve been keen for some time to take abstract/impressionistic close-ups of flowers and plants, so when I read about your eBook, The Softer Side of Macro, on Birds as Art, I had no hesitation in buying a copy.
It’s exactly what I was hoping for and is a great inspiration to try this style of macro photography (not much interested in detailed photos of bugs).
I’ve recently moved to a cottage in the country (in South Africa) where there’s an abundance of indigenous wild flowers, so have no shortage of subjects. I obviously need to develop the skills you describe in your book but, before I start, I also need a macro lens and I hope you’ll have time to share your thoughts or offer suggestions.
I use Canon gear (50D and old 1D Mk II), so no full-frame, although that could happen in the future. My options seem to be:
1. EF 100mm macro (non IS) – $569.00
2. EF 100mm L macro (IS) – $979.00
3. EF-S 60mm macro – $429.00
No 1 seems the obvious choice because of cost to quality ratio and compatibility with full-frame. However, I don’t have steady hands, am mid-60s so not that supple any more (it’s not going to be easy crouching and lying down for some shots). So basically will need a tripod most the time and it’s going to be awkward doing so in some situations.
No 2 is expensive and would stretch the budget, but sounds ideal in that I’d be able to hand-hold much of the time using IS … especially when getting into awkward positions when a tripod would be difficult to use. A big plus for this lens would be ability to use it hand held for wildlife (still my primary interest), plus f/2.8 in low light.
No 3 doesn’t have IS, but possibly would be fine on a 50D, plus it’s small and light, while also affordable. Maybe start with this and once I’m more comfortable and competent taking macro shots, look at upgrading?
I quite often get asked about lenses for wildlife, so know it’s not easy giving definitive answers. However, if there’s an obvious flaw in my thinking, or if it’ll be making a serious mistake choosing one of the above, then I’d be forever grateful if you could steer me in the right direction or stop me making a bad decision.
Thank you for your time,
Scotch Macaskill
My reply:
Hello Scotch and thank you for this question. I recently had a similar dilemma. I dropped my Canon 100mm Macro lens (non IS) and the front element smashed into pieces. I wasn’t sure how much it would cost to fix it and so I debated getting the new image stabilized version. I had had the older version for some time. I was always happy with the results whether using my Canon 5D or my Canon 1D Mark III. Except when creating intentional blurs I use the lens almost exclusively wide open, at close range while hand holding with manual focus.
I had a chance to try the new IS version and didn’t note any significant difference in my images. So I’m sticking to my old lens. It all depends on what you are going to use the lens for and it sounds like you are a little undecided about that 
If anyone would like to help Scotch with any advice, suggestions or first hand experience we’d love to hear from you.
As the owner of 4 macro lenses (nikon), none of which have IS/VR, and two of which are manual focus only, I would say that there is no relationship between cost/focual length, and what is best, because “best” is what is best for your shooting style and shooting interests. I shoot a lot of flowers, do a lot of yoga and am a good hand-holder, and truth be told, if I were forced to sell 3 of the lenses and keep only one, it would be the 60. It sounds like for your needs, the longer one would be a better choice. I don’t know what type of wildlife you shoot, but 100mm is, in general pretty short for that type of application. If you intend to shoot bugs, 100 or longer is almost a must. With shorter lenses, you have to get very close, and will often block the light with your body, not to mention scare the critters away.
People argue about the value of IS/VR on macro lenses. It’s a stupid argument because it depends on what you are doing with the lens. If you are going to shoot only on a tripod, there is no need for stabilization on a lens that short. If you shoot hand-held, IS/VR will only correct for rotational/translational movements, that is, movements up and down and back and forth and arcing movements on the same plane. It doesn’t help at all with fore/aft movement, which is movement back and forth. That is actually the type of movement that becomes most detrimental when you are doing any sort of shallow depth-of-field application (very close range, wide-open lens), as Denise does in the Softer Side approach. VR/IS will not do much good there. If you really are extremely shaky and really want to hand hold, then you will still get benefit from IS/VR to control the other types of movement, which do also come into play. And since it sounds like your intentions for the lens are not restricted to close-range work, IS/VR could be beneficial for non-macro applications. It does however, as you’ve noted, add substantially to the price, no matter what the manufacturer.
Have you thought about one of the Sigma macro lenses? A lot of people like the longer focal lengths that they offer for lower prices than Canon/Nikon lenses. Depending upon your specific interests, the 150 might make sense, though it will be even less hand-holdable if you don’t get the stabilized version. Also the Tamron 90 is a very good lens.
Mary, All good points! Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Scotch, I’ve used the 100mm f/2.8 (non-IS) and it’s one of the better buys out there; good build quality, light weight, relatively small size, and it is superb optically. I used one for a few years and eventually sold mine for a longer focal length macro (I currently shoot with the Canon 180mm), primarily because of the working distance it allows; you’re at 1:1 magnification at a working distance of 9.5″ (compared to about 6″ on the 100mm), and the 180mm accepts Canon TCs, something the 100mm does not, although I have read that it will accept non-Canon TCs; that may or may not be important to you, but for my style of shooting it comes in handy at times, and with the 1.4X TC the 180mm is still very sharp. The 180 DOES stretch the budget…you can find them used for about $1150-$1200. DOF is also a consideration, as is bokeh; because of the focal length, as you stop down the 100mm background details can sometimes be more prevalent than they would be with a longer lens. The 180 might be more diverse in use for wildlife. A friend of mine uses the Sigma 150mm macro, and for the price it’s a very nice lens; unfortunately, it’s been replaced with a 150mm OS version (Sigma’s version of IS), so the cost is now over $1000; I don’t know if you’ll still be able to find the non-OS version new…I checked B&H and their site stated the lens was no longer available (the cost new for then non-OS version ran around $700…you may be able to find one used). I don’t have any experience with the Tamron lenses, so I can’t really speak to them.
The choice of a lens is so tied to shooting style and personal preference…it’s always difficult when recommending a lens not to let your personal preferences dictate too strongly. The 100mm f/2.8 is a great choice…I wouldn’t hesitate to purchase it…but, as Mary mentioned, if you’re considering insects at all…or if you can see yourself wanting to use a TC with the lens…I would recommend the 180mm if you can swing it. One thought would be to start with the 100mm and sell it down the road if you find the need; the 100mm holds it value pretty well. Good luck with your choice!
Hi John, Solid advice, thanks for taking the time to help!
Thanks Denise, Mary, and John for your thoughtful and comprehensive replies – much appreciated.
I’m sorry if I was rather vague about my intended uses, so to clarify, the macro would be used 90% of the time for flower photography in Denise’s style and not for bugs or finely detailed images requiring maximum DOF.
I do have other lenses for wildlife, so using the 100mm IS macro for wildlife is definitely not a priority. My budget is limited and unfortunately buying used lenses on eBay or other online sites in the US is, in most cases, not possible from where I live.
I like John’s suggestion to start with the 100mm non-IS and sell it down the road if I find the need. This makes a lot of sense, particularly if VR/IS is less effective when shooting wide open to achieve shallow DOF, as Mary has explained. Thanks again for the advice and suggestions.
The 100mm Macro is a great lens, I did have the 180mm Macro but it didn’t suit my needs.
denise
I do not do a lot of macro but as I am a telephoto guy I own and use the 180 macro as I like the additional working distance and the narrow angle of view
Artie, you do an amazing job with your telephoto macros!
denise