5 deleted personal remark, rephrased it slightly.
source | link

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits, as I still lack some important macro equipment ATM. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-macro use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. In my opinion, Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The lens's manual of the lens saysstates at page 9::

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


Lens stabilization in this lens will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This should, in theory, apply apply to all macro lenses with image stabilization - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want. That, however, would definitively be noticed by users - and we would know for sure within days or weeks of the release of such a lens, as nobody likes their lenses with artificially limited functions.

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits, as I still lack some important macro equipment ATM. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-macro use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The manual of the lens says at page 9:

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


Lens stabilization will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This should, in theory, apply to all macro lenses with image stabilization - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want. That, however, would definitively be noticed by users - and we would know for sure within days or weeks of the release of such a lens, as nobody likes their lenses with artificially limited functions.

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-macro use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. In my opinion, Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The lens's manual states at page 9:

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


Lens stabilization in this lens will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This should apply to all macro lenses with image stabilization - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want. That, however, would definitively be noticed by users - and we would know for sure within days or weeks of the release of such a lens, as nobody likes their lenses with artificially limited functions.

4 spelling fixed broken formatting
source | link

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits, as I still lack some important macro equipment ATM. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-marcomacro use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The manual of the lens says at page 9:

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


So my answer is that itLens stabilization will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This should, in theory, apply to all macro lenses with image stabilisationstabilization - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want. That, however, would definitively be noticed by users - and we would know for sure within days or weeks of the release of such a lens, as nobody likes their lenses with artificially limited functions.

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits, as I still lack some important macro equipment ATM. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-marco use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The manual of the lens says at page 9:

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


So my answer is that it will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This should, in theory, apply to all macro lenses with image stabilisation - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want. That, however, would definitively be noticed by users - and we would know for sure within days or weeks of the release of such a lens, as nobody likes their lenses with artificially limited functions.

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits, as I still lack some important macro equipment ATM. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-macro use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The manual of the lens says at page 9:

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


Lens stabilization will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This should, in theory, apply to all macro lenses with image stabilization - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want. That, however, would definitively be noticed by users - and we would know for sure within days or weeks of the release of such a lens, as nobody likes their lenses with artificially limited functions.

3 added 20 characters in body
source | link

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits, as I still lack some important macro equipment ATM. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-marco use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The manual of the lens says at page 9:

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


So my answer is that it will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This shouldThis should, in theory, apply to all Macro lenses with image stabilisationapply to all macro lenses with image stabilisation - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want. That, however, would definitively be noticed by users - and we would know for sure within days or weeks of the release of such a lens, as nobody likes their lenses with artificially limited functions.

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits, as I still lack some important macro equipment ATM. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-marco use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The manual of the lens says at page 9:

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


So my answer is that it will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This should, in theory, apply to all Macro lenses with image stabilisation - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want.

As camera-shake in macro photography will be about the same as in any other kind of photography, the IS will work just as well.

I can confirm this for my 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM which I primarily use for portraits, as I still lack some important macro equipment ATM. As this is a different lens, it would still be possible that Canon went through the trouble to specifically deactivate IS in non-marco use in the 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM.

This review from the-digital-picture.com does mention IS - but no limitation to macro-only. Bryan typically is very thorough with his reviews, so I would imagine that he would mention such a heavy limitation in use-cases.

The manual of the lens says at page 9:

The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be. [...]

Also, the Image Stabilizer provides image stabilization depending on shooting conditions (such as shooting still subjects, following shots, and close-ups (macro)).

So actually, it will work even better in non-macro distances (as there is more room for error - a few µm will not be noticed at 3m distance).


So my answer is that it will, most certainly, work with all kinds of photography at full 4 stops in ideal conditions. This should, in theory, apply to all macro lenses with image stabilisation - though of course, any manufacturer could deactivate it for whichever reason they want. That, however, would definitively be noticed by users - and we would know for sure within days or weeks of the release of such a lens, as nobody likes their lenses with artificially limited functions.

2 added canon manual.
source | link
1
source | link