[GUB]

Trying to get my head around this.
We know that we can go with a slower shutter speed when hand-holding a shorter focal length in normal shooting situations.
But does the same hold true in macro when we are trying to achieve a given image magnification.
I have a range of good macros ranging from 50mm to 135mm and wish to achieve magnifications between 1:2 and 1:1 on misty cobwebs.
Will it be easier to handhold a stable shot with the shorter focal length for a given shutter speed.?

[othar]

Movements along the sensor plane will have the same effect for all focal lengths when dealing with the same magnification, however tilting the camera will result in greater movement with longer focal lengths.

That said I have made handhold macro images with extension tubes using focal lengths of 35mm, 50mm, 135mm and 210mm without any issues, as long as your subject is well lit

[GUB]

Movements along the sensor plane will have the same effect for all focal lengths when dealing with the same magnification, however tilting the camera will result in greater movement with longer focal lengths.

That said I have made handhold macro images with extension tubes using focal lengths of 35mm, 50mm, 135mm and 210mm without any issues, as long as your subject is well lit

Aha that was what I was thinking. So it depends on whether you yaw rather than just shake.
So in use it is probably a combination of both so there is likely to be a gain from a shorter lens.
Thanks. The A 50 2.8 it is! Now just need a morning fog.

[UncleVanya]

I’m having a difficult time finding references this morning. However, my understanding is that macro lenses at close focus have increased focal length which - in theory - reduces the effectiveness of ibis. I did my own tests on ibis on macro years ago and posted my results on the forum. My tests were pretty basic and pragmatic rather than quantified. I found bumping the focal length by 2x was effective at 1:1. I didn’t exhaustively try other ratios besides the default of using the normal focal length.

[othar]

Aha that was what I was thinking. So it depends on whether you yaw rather than just shake.
So in use it is probably a combination of both so there is likely to be a gain from a shorter lens.
Thanks. The A 50 2.8 it is! Now just need a morning fog.

A 50mm lens is certainly a versatile choice as a macro lens and will perform nicely for your mentioned subject.

The more important criteria for choosing the best macro lens for you will be your intended working distance in my opinion. For small plants (flowers, mushrooms,...) or lifeless objects a shorter focal lenght (close working distance) can be beneficial in combination with a ring flash for example, while insects are easier photographed with longer lenses (further away)

[othar]

I’m having a difficult time finding references this morning. However, my understanding is that macro lenses at close focus have increased focal length which - in theory - reduces the effectiveness of ibis. I did my own tests on ibis on macro years ago and posted my results on the forum. My tests were pretty basic and pragmatic rather than quantified. I found bumping the focal length by 2x was effective at 1:1. I didn’t exhaustively try other ratios besides the default of using the normal focal length.

I stay with the focal lenght of the lens for SR, because otherwise I loose track of which lens I used for a certain image. I try to increase shutter speed instead to counteract camera shake (therefore good light is key) -> for normal photography I try to use shutter speeds faster than at least 1/focal lenght, for macro I try to stay faster than 1/(2 focal lenght)

[UncleVanya]

I stay with the focal lenght of the lens for SR, because otherwise I loose track of which lens I used for a certain image. I try to increase shutter speed instead to counteract camera shake (therefore good light is key) -> for normal photography I try to use shutter speeds faster than at least 1/focal lenght, for macro I try to stay faster than 1/(2 focal lenght)

That makes sense.

[Digitalis]

But does the same hold true in macro when we are trying to achieve a given image magnification.

All camera movements are amplified at higher magnifications for typical available light we know the rule of never choosing a shutter speed slower than the focal length we are working with (expressed as 1≥f) for macro photography under available light at magnifications approaching 1:2 I go with 2x≥f

Though I typically work with long macro lenses (Sigma 180 f/3.5 and FA200f/4 ED Macro) so the need for high ISO just to keep the shutter speeds up is often required. The image degradation from motion blur is worse than the noise seen at ISO 3200.

[mlag]

Lacking a macro 1:1 lens, I tried combinations of 135mm 200mm and 300 mm with/without TC 1,4x and 1,7x , and extension tube 25mm.
Both 200 and 300 produced nice results, dof was shallow - butterflies touching the limits. As I used both newer and vintage lenses, I quickly found that the minimal focus distance matters perhaps more then the tele magnification - some older lenses have mfd of 3...4 meter and more ...
The main advantage of longer tele : it allows to shoot from larger distance and the animals remain undisturbed by your approach, I mainly used a walk around and point and handheld shooting approach.
I used ibis & correct focal length (for teleconvertors and manual lenses).

A 200 and 300mm example. I think both with extension tube, unfortunately not visible in exif, so not sure.

[rogerstg]

Two other camera related settings for getting the best still photos handheld: shoot bursts, and unless there is artificial light, use the electronic shutter.

For the photographer: develop good technique and practice it.