Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mistybreeze on May 08, 2006, 12:04:42 pm
-
After years of enjoying a mad love affair with Medium and Large Format cameras/film, the time has come to upgrade my kick-around digital (Sony CyberShot F707) and revisit newer, more serious 35mm options. I loved working in 35mm (Canon EOS 630) when I was younger and often waxed nostalgic through the years as I hauled heavy, hefty equipment. However, once I fell in love with the Medium and Large Format film quality (and negatives drum scanned), I learned to tolerate big, bulky, and expensive and never looked back.
Now that I'm older, I like the idea of simplifying my life a little and look forward to shooting with the new 35mm digital technology. The Canon 5D Digital SLR seems to be calling out my name. The minute I picked it up it felt like home. The 1Ds never felt right to me: the bodies are too heavy, I don't need weather sealing, and I won't use it enough to justify the expense. Now that 5D offers full-frame and its price is within reach, the time has arrived to...downgrade up, perhaps?
I need experienced help picking those "perfect" lenses to copulate my 5D body. There seems too much to pick from and I've been away from the format too long to be the best judge. I've read many forum threads and everything Erwin Puts has to offer but I also want to hear expert opinion on my list.
I'm not a big fan of zoom lenses unless someone can convince me the quality is "must have." Of course shooting style and preferences should dictate every photographer's "best lens" decisions which is why I explain my reasons for considering the following:
- EF 24mm, f/1.4L ($1100) - I need one great quality, highly-usable wide angle lens for cityscapes, elevations, landscaping, architecture, etc. I also love the option of being able to shoot in low light. I LOVE my Gitzo tripods. I can live without extreme wide angles because any distortion will really bother me. I'm no fan of the fisheye look.
- TS-E 24mm, f/3.5L ($1100) - Less low-light opportunities but maybe I'm better off with this one, especially for shooting architecture. I love the tilt/shift feature of large format. Maybe I could fall in love with this and make it my all-purpose wide angle.
- EF 85mm, f/1.2L II ($2100) - I need a FABULOUS portrait lens and I LOVE tack sharp and/or gorgeous fall off. I shoot and travel in celebrity circles so the portrait lens will be my most important lens.
- EF 85mm, f/1.8 ($329) - Does this deserve serious consideration instead of the $2100 version? Many photographers seem to love this inexpensive lens but I NEED to see pores and every imperfection. Can this baby satisfy a detail hound like myself?
- EF 100mm, f/2.8 Macro ($470) - I LOVE my MF Macros and often use them for editorial food, beauty portraits (lips, eyes and lashes), and flowers/butterflies. Will this one satisfy my perfection needs and put a smile on my face? Does it matter that it has no "L." Should I consider the 180mm-f/3.5 Macro instead?
- EF 70-200mm, f/2.8L IS ($1700) - Or, should I consider this instead of the Macro? I don't think I mind standing further away from my subject to get a similar Macro effect. If I had to own a zoom, maybe this is the one?
- EF 200mm, f/2.8L II ($660) - I have to have one moderately long lens with a better than decent aperture opening. This one won't break the bank and seems like it could come in handy. If I buy this and the 100mm Macro, I kill both birds/butterflies and save a little money by not buying the zoom.
I don't shoot sports so I have little use for really long lenses. I used to love them for energetic street fashion but that look has been passe for many years.
Please, hit me with your knowledgable comments, criticisms, or compliments. I love listening to smart, experienced photographers.
Thank you in advance,
MistyBreeze
-
After years of enjoying a mad love affair with Medium and Large Format cameras/film, the time has come to upgrade my kick-around digital (Sony CyberShot F707) and revisit newer, more serious 35mm options. ....
MistyBreeze,
You may want to visit Fred Miranda forums (here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/)) and William L. Castleman website (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm). You can find different Canon 24mm lenses tested and compared on the LL website (here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml)). Comparative tests of the 85mm (f/1.2 [version I] and f/1.8) can be found on the above-mentionned Castleman website.
HTH
-
If there's one thing I absolutely adore, it's a generous man willing to point me in the right direction. Thank you, francois. I'm sure I would have stumbled across those url's eventually but you saved me an enormous amount of time and reading. I appreciate your help.
ps Miranda's landscape style is very similar to mine. I'm usually out of the hotel suite by 4am. Apparently, I had forgotten about Fred. Thanks for the head's up.
-
After buying the 24-105L I got rid of my wide angle and normal lenses, that much I like it when corrected by the DxO module. For the rest, I use mostly primes: 85L, 135L and 200L. They are black, light and just great, particularly the 85 mm lens. I rarely use my 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 IS, despite the convenience of zooms.
Enrique
-
- EF 200mm, f/2.8L II ($660) - I have to have one moderately long lens with a better than decent aperture opening. This one won't break the bank and seems like it could come in handy. If I buy this and the 100mm Macro, I kill both birds/butterflies and save a little money by not buying the zoom.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No way on earth that 200mm will be long enough for bird photography, especially on a FF sensor. If you are interested in birds, look for the 300 f/4 IS or the 400 f/5.6, both "L".
-
macgyver, maybe I should have said vineyard grapes instead of birds. The only birds I shoot are the ones who fly onto my NYC terrace or visit my hotel terraces while traveling. I'm not really a bird photographer.
-
Hi, Honestly if you want primes a good choice would be the 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm f2, all are top notch on the full frame cameras. You wont be spending a fortune either. You can substitute the 100 with the 85mm 1.2 which I have and its reputation is well deserved but the 100 is very close in quality although obviously not as fast.
The 100mm macro is a great lens.
For telephoto its gard to beat a 70-200 but for more reach the 300mm f4L IS is a great lens. I love mine on the 5d. It focuses very close for a 300.
-
I'd consider adding to your list; the relatively inexpensive Canon 17-40 f4 L, the Canon 35mm f1.4 L and the Canon 135 f2 L.
I'd also be looking at the longer primes (300mm+) as well.
-
24/1.4: According to PZ and WC, the 24/1.4 and 28/1.8 are pretty close in their performance. As a 28/1.8 owner who tested it (though shortly) against my 50/1.8 and a friend's 35/1.4 I can tell you that it's corner sharpness is NOT such a big issue as seen in PZ and WC. I'd rate it as perfectly usable at 1.8 (i.e. I will not hesitate using it there) and excellent at 2.8. I also tested it against my friend's 16-35/2.8. Indistinguishable at f/2.8 and up. Is it good as tele lenses like the 85/1.8 at f/1.8? Of course not. By nature, tele lenses are far sharper than wide angles.
What I consider it's main problem is flare. If the sun is just outside the corners, it flares badly. Surprisingly, if the sun is in the frame this does not happen. In practice, I use the lens hood at all times, a bit of composition shifts and avoid this problem completely. Even more surprisingly, the 17-40/4 and the 10-22/3.5-4.5 are better in that regard.
I have this lens and consider selling it. Reason (only reason): It is far too light on my 1D and the whole complex feels unbalanced. On the far lighter 5D however, it should be perfect.
Summary: If budget is a problem, consider the 28/1.8 instead of the 24/1.4. It is an excellent value for the money. The only problem I see is the different FoV but as you are going to get another 24mm lens, this actually turns to be an advantage.
24/3.5: There are simply no other equivalent alternatives. Get it.
85/1.2: Excellent lens but if you are not absolutely sure you really need 1.2, skip it. At WC you can see a comparison between the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8. As a 85/1.8 past owner I can tell you that DoF at f/1.8 is extremely thin. It is very easy to get the focus in the wrong place. For that reason I often found myself stopping it down to f/2.8 or even f/4 just to get more DoF. If I ever be rich enough to purchase all my dream lenses, this one will not be in the list. Even f/1.8 is barely manageable.
85/1.8: I had this one for several years but recently sold it. Reason (again, the only reason): It is far too light on my 1D and the whole complex feels unbalanced. Optically it is a gem with absolutely no flaws.
100/2.8: Another optical gem. Only problem may arise is in portrait mode, where it's relatively slow AF may pose a problem. I would like to stress that when I say relatively slow AF I only refer to super fast lenses like the 85/1.8. The decision between it and the 180/3.5 needs to be on a weight/size/working distance/price factors, not optical ones. Another option may be the Tamron 180/3.5. Some tests show that it is even better than the Canon equivalent.
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html (http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html)
70-200/2.8 IS: Again, there are simply no other equivalent alternatives. Get it.
200/2.8: I had it. Sorry to repeat myself but this is another optical gem (most Canon primes are like that). Absolutely no flaws save from the lack of IS. If this is not a must, get it.
Additional lenses to consider:
17-40/4: As a general purpose wide lens, this one is hard to beat.
35/1.4: As a fast and natural PoV (at least as I see it) lens, this is possibly the best.
135/2: Perhaps the ultimate outdoor portrait lens.
Which set I'd advise you to start with based on your needs?
24/3.5 for architecture and as a general purpose wide lens.
35/1.4 for streets photography and low light situations.
85/1.8 for indoor portraits and low light situations.
135/2 for outdoor portraits and low light situations.
Tamron 180/3.5 for macro and tele.
Useful links:
WC = http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm)
PZ = http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html)
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/photo_index.htm (http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/photo_index.htm)
-
And whoever said photographers were selfish and stingy? I love the LL and DPR crowd and I can't thank you all enough for taking time to write and offer your pro opinions.
Let me add this: Optical performance is my pet peeve. I will tolerate most other pains — like the awful, boxy feel of a Mamiya RZ or the upside-down view of the Technikardan 9x12 — as long as I can wallow in optical eden. How I LOVE shooting larger formats but truly hate certain aspects of those cameras.
I love a great AF feature but I have a tendency not to rely on it, especially when shooting portraits, so AF speed isn't a serious issue for me. In a studio setting; I will be tethered with the 5D, on a tripod, and the model's position will be marked. I check for focus on the Cinema Display and when I'm spot on, I typically shut off AF. I started my career as an art director and rarely shoot without a strong concept planned. Off-the-cuff, off-the-tripod, capture-as-you go is not my dominant style.
Because of my View Camera history, I'm a big fan of shutter release cords and stepping away from the camera. The way I see it: I'm the director and the camera is just my tool, but I'm a sucker for a great lens.
Regarding costs: I like being a practical yet prudent shopper. They say wisdom comes with age. I tend to buy things that I know I will LOVE and then find a way to pay for them. I'm only interested in owning four fabulous 35mm lenses total, four that I will come to love and use over and over again. If I feel the need to add to that four later, then I will revisit this thread.
Keep those expert opinions coming, please.
-
Well, let's see. I have 5D and 1DS MKII and have 24mm T/S, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and 100mm f2.8 macro. However, none of these get as much use as the 70-200 f2.8L IS, the 70-300 DO IS or the 17-40 f4L. However, the lenses that get the most use are the 24-70 f2.8L and the 24-105 f4L IS. These are both excellent lenses and yes I know you said you are not a fan of zooms, but maybe you should think again.
-
Hello-
You are anticipating your 5D will "simplify" your life, and maybe it will, but when I started shooting digitally, my photo life became more complex, with more time in front of the computer etc., more things to buy.
Also, you mentioned that you want a great lens to "copulate" the 5D body. Whichever lens you choose, I hope you all have fun.
James
-
You are anticipating your 5D will "simplify" your life, and maybe it will, but when I started shooting digitally, my photo life became more complex, with more time in front of the computer etc., more things to buy.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Selecting and purchasing multiple types of film, Polaroids and Backs, Labs/Negs/Chromes/Storage, Third-party Retouchers, the Darkroom, maintaining a $40,000 drum scanner: you can keep 'em. I'm a Photoshop pro and I see the 5D offering an easy way to capture pretty pictures. Plus, I LOVE working at my digital workstation. Sure beats anything network TV has to offer.
Also, you mentioned that you want a great lens to "copulate" the 5D body. Whichever lens you choose, I hope you all have fun.
James
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, I said copulate "my" 5D body. Photography is fun for me and, when I get excited, look out!
-
Hi!
I've got a 5D and I'm still enjoying the noisereduction compared to 1DS Mk II and the totally impressive relolution / clearness when compared to 10D/20D.
I've used the 85 f/1.2 on my 20D and now on my 5D. 1.2 is wild, it'll reauire a VERY stedy hand, I love it when I get the focus right, an eye ball will be in focus and the lashes out of! It's become my main lens for, well everything since the resolution is so impressive - well crisp I guess. at 100% no USM you think you're looking af 25% + lots of USM.
You could check out some portraits here:
www.globalphotographic.net
look under recent travel Panamá / Vietnam
Both done woth 85mm f/1.2L
Then the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. That's my lens baby- The weight, the feel, the crispnes too. Just get it.
Forget about comparing it to a macro it sucks at it.
I't my main lens.
Other lenses in the bag are
17-40 f/4
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8L IS
100-400 USM
85 f/1.2
300 f/2.8
Sincerely
Sune Wendelboe
www.globalphotographic.net
-
Dear Sune,
Thank you so much for your post. I am completely sold on the 85 f/1.2 in large thanks to viewing your Panamá / Vietnam folder. You have FABULOUS images!
The 85 f/1.2L will be my new primary portrait lens. I will continue to research the other choices.
Sincere appreciation,
Mist
-
As you can see, it's hard to be wrong by selecting a prime or an L zoom. Now it's just a matter of picking the most suitable ones for your needs.
-
As a large format shooter, whenever I use a small format camera with a rigid lens, I always feel a bit constrained. As soon as I decided to go digital, the first thing I looked at was Canon's TS-E lenses. I'd been using the 35mm Tilt/Shift FD lens with my F-1 for many years. So when I saw that Canon now makes three lenses with tilt and shift, there was no reason to consider anything but a Canon DSLR.
So I'd strongly suggest you do what I did. Buy all three TS-E lenses. They're wonderful. I even went so far as to get a 35mm FD T/S that had been converted to EF mount so I didn't have to make mine incompatible with my F-1, which I still use for Provia F.
Having all four focal lengths with tilt and shift is a wonderful aid to my work.
-
Mistybreeze and all of you... This query has been of immense help to me as I was unable to decide on how to build the set.
I found a truck load of answers in this query for another I had posted separatley. Thanks again
As a large format shooter, whenever I use a small format camera with a rigid lens, I always feel a bit constrained. As soon as I decided to go digital, the first thing I looked at was Canon's TS-E lenses. I'd been using the 35mm Tilt/Shift FD lens with my F-1 for many years. So when I saw that Canon now makes three lenses with tilt and shift, there was no reason to consider anything but a Canon DSLR.
So I'd strongly suggest you do what I did. Buy all three TS-E lenses. They're wonderful. I even went so far as to get a 35mm FD T/S that had been converted to EF mount so I didn't have to make mine incompatible with my F-1, which I still use for Provia F.
Having all four focal lengths with tilt and shift is a wonderful aid to my work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I just completed my own wide angle tests on the 5D and I'm fascinated by the results. The four lenses I tested:
16-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L
24mm f/1.4L
TS 24mm f/3.5L
First Set-Up:
Tripod on terrace, shooting 24mm image of Manhattan skyline, overcast sky, 4 PM.
Second Set-Up:
Across the street, ground level, exterior facade of 22-story apartment building. Clear, sunny day, 11 AM but building was not lit by direct sun.
I wish I could take the time to show my results to everyone. The 24-70 2.8L won the test hands down. Of all four lenses tested, the buildings and trees on the outer edge of the frame appeared crisper in the 24-70 shot at 24mm/2.8. The truly shocking finding: the 24mm prime at 2.8 was substantially soft when comparing same sections. Even at 4.0 the 24mm prime could not compare to the crispness of the 24-70 image shot at 2.8. Also, cloudy sky vignetting was quite strong on on the 24mm prime and did not completely disappear until 5.6.
It seems the 24-70mm f/2.8L will be my new, everyday wide-angle lens for the 5D. It's heavy, for sure, but feels like a big man in my hands. Since I almost always rely on a tripod, it should beat carrying three primes and eliminate any longings for f/1.4.
My second interesting fave is the Tilt Shift 24mm. I can see its creative potential. I need to research how to work with this lens better (or simply get more practice) but I can already imagine Manual Focus causing problems. I can't see a thing through the 5D viewfinder. Anyone have any experience with the Dioptric Adjustment Lenses and/or optional Focusing Screens?
More to come...
Thanks, everyone!
-
In my experience of using Canon gear, and currently with a 5D and 1DS, the main lenses I use are the
16-35mm f2.8L
24-70mm f2.8L
70-200mm f2.8L
The first two lenses get the most work. However the prime lenses I have are quite stunning
50mm Macro
100mm Macro
and the
TS 24mm Shift
The shift is really stunning, and by merging two shots using the horizontal shift to the left and then another to the right, you can achieve a wide image that betters the 16mm.
Overall the prime lenses are first class. The zooms are good and it highlights that you get what you pay for.
I also have a 300mm IS F4 which is good, but I dont use that often simply because my work doesnt require it that often.
William Long
www.longshots.com.au
-
Only ones I can comment on in your list are the 85/1.8 and the 100/2.8 USM Macro. (Older 100/2.8 Macros are not USM and are much slower AF)
I recently traded the former for the latter.
I am not really finding any issue with the AF on the macro lens being too slow. It has a focus limiter which really helps.
My impression is either the 100 is more accurate in terms of AF on the 5D, or it is just sharper. This is of course subjective.
The 85 also has a rather long minimum focus distance which can be annoying. The great focusing range on the macro does not go unnoticed. (See if the 85/1.2 has a better min focus distance then the 85/1.8)
The 100 does have more depth of field which is probably making it easier to use for portraits.. but not much.
85mm @ f/1.8 @ 8ft - 0.28ft depth of field
100mm @ f/2.8 @ 8ft - 0.32ft depth of field - different composition of course
100mm @ f/2.8 @ 10ft - 0.5ft - guesstimating at approximating the same framing
Other comments:
I can't see how you could not get a 50/1.4. That's probably my favorite lens.
Definitely grab a TS-E coming from large format cameras!
-
I know the easiest answer to my query is to buy them all! I've reached a point in my life where simplicity has its rewards. I really don't want a too-large collection of lenses. I won't ever leave the studio if the bag is too heavy or if the lens decision (which ones to take) is too time consuming.
Renting the wide-angle lenses from FotoCare and performing the tests was the best way to pick my favorite wide angle. My 24-70 test results took me and my studio by surprise and I have since found out this lens rates very high with digital tech assistants here in NYC. I plan to do similar tests with the other lenses, as well.
I have to have a dedicated portrait lens so the decision to purchase the 85 f/1.2L II was easy. I'm a big fan of beauty cosmetics, and the bokeh will serve my high-end tastes well.
The 35mm f/1.4L is one of the most talked about primes. It seems to me, if I fall in love with this lens, I won't need a 50mm. I come from an advertising/art direction background and cropping the million-dollar shot is a talent I possess. As long as there's room to shoot 35mm, I should be content with cropping.
The Macro decision will require more research as I'm leaning towards the 180mm f/3.5L. My favorite Medium Format Macro was 120mm. I'll have to test and compare results. I love to shoot editorial food, flowers, and butterflies with beautiful bokeh.
I've also made the decision to purchase the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. It'll probably get the least use but I'll be happy it's there when I need it. I'm not a big fan of being too far away from my subjects and, like I said, I don't shoot sports.
Thank you for your continued comments.
-
I've had 2 copies of the 85mm 1.8 and the new 85mm 1.2 which I played with at a recent conference is noticeably better even at f4. It made my 24-70L (which I know is sharp!) look like a milk bottle in comparison!
-
I've had 2 copies of the 85mm 1.8 and the new 85mm 1.2 which I played with at a recent conference is noticeably better even at f4. It made my 24-70L (which I know is sharp!) look like a milk bottle in comparison!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, considering how sharp I found the 24-70 in my tests, that's exciting to read.
I haven't purchased the 85mm 1.2L yet but I'm looking forward to working with it. From all that I've seen and read, I have a feeling I will love it—and for 2G, I better like it.
I will most likely rely on the 24-70 for travel photography, and favor it on the wide end. I doubt it will be the lens I pick up to shoot serious people/beauty images but I can see it capturing people on the streets in everyday life. I'm excited.
-
Misty mate, why don't you get a 16-35L to go with the 85mm if you want a WA solution? the 24-70L is my work lens, I wouldn't carry it around for fun it's damn heavy! Using the 24-70L mainly for the wide end is a waste of time and weight.
I would warn you though if you've never used one, the new 85mm 1.2 is slooooow focusing, I can't imagine what the old one was like! I wouldn't say that is was a street lens if you intend to AF, half the time it will be quicker to manual focus for fast moving situations and capturing decisive moments.
-
Misty mate, why don't you get a 16-35L to go with the 85mm if you want a WA solution? the 24-70L is my work lens, I wouldn't carry it around for fun it's damn heavy! Using the 24-70L mainly for the wide end is a waste of time and weight.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 16-35L failed my crisp-focus test at 24mm. I will NEVER sacrifice sharpness to save weight in the bag. Plus, my bod is worked out, I shoot in heels, and I won't be visiting the Grand Canyon anytime soon. I have little use and appreciation for 16mm images. Too many look like pretty post cards and that's not my style. But, thank you.
I would warn you though if you've never used one, the new 85mm 1.2 is slooooow focusing[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think I wrote in my opening post that I don't rely on Auto-Focus. I doubt I would ever use AF at 1.2 when shooting beauty.
-
Sorry that this reply is late in the day but...
Regarding the choice of Canon macro lenses. All three (that will 'fit' the 5D) are very good. They are not the best available but they are good, and as good as each other. I've been using macro for most of my photography for the last 20 years so have seen most of the macro's in action.
The 50mm is fine if the subject you're photographing doesn't fly or run away as you'll have to get really close.
The 180mmL is better in this respect due to the greater working distance but you lose depth of field. However, it will be better for subjects such as lizards where the longer distance will increase DoF.
The 100mm is the best compromise. Only use it for macro work as you may be disappointed if you use it for portrait work.
These are all designed to work best at close(ish) distances. Additionally, I have never used the autofocus on a macro lens as the area I want in focus, usually defined by a DoF of only 2 or 3 mm, is usually outside the autofocus frame (however, this is most prevalent when approaching 1:1 and less so at greater distances). I think autofocus on a macro lens is largely redundant and just compromises the design and consequently optical quality (cf, Contax Zeiss 120mm Makro, Leica and Zeiss macros, and Tamron 90mm SP - all manual focus and all excellent but only the Tamron is available in EOS fit). If you ever consider a Tamron 180mm AF (also very good and arguably slightly better at certain distances than the Canon 180mm), beware that there are one or two dodgy ones floating around and this is due to the 'only-one-checked-in-ten' quality control.
Hope some of this helps.
SJM
-
SJM, thank you for your post. I will do a test soon for my Macro decision because I have no experience with 35mm Macro lenses.
I think I mentioned that I own the Contax Zeiss 120mm Macro and I LOVE this lens. It's great for beauty/cosmetic close-ups, editorial food/floral shots (Martha Stewart style), portraiture with lovely bokeh, flowers, butterflies, etc., all without having to be "on top" of the subject. I think the only way I will be content with my 35mm Macro decision is to test the choices.
I know that many photographers swear by Tamron but I can afford Canon L glass and I'm not looking to create a discounted or disjointed 35mm outfit. I know I leave myself open to flames but it's hard for me to believe that a $700 Tamron performs better than a $1200 Canon L. But I always leave my thinking door open.
Thank you for offering your feedback.
-
>> The 100mm is the best compromise. Only use it for macro work as you may be disappointed if you use it for portrait work.
Why?
>> I have never used the autofocus on a macro lens...... I think autofocus on a macro lens is largely redundant
I am a macro novice (with 100/2.8 USM) and really enjoy using AF in macro. Works great.
-
The Tamron is as good as the Canon. The lower price is reflected in the build quality - Tamron is plastic while the Canon is of typical L construction. The glass is excellent though.
I think if Tamron actually had faith in their macro lens and built it accordingly, along with better quality control (although same argument with Canon in this respect), we would see it as more than a match for the Canon and up there with Zeiss, Leitz and Schneider!
All the best,
SJM
-
Having just picked up 3 new lenses myself, I can relate to your indecision. A comment on macro lenses, I decided on the new Sigma 150 F2.8 and have patted myself on the back ever since. I like a little longer reach than a 50 or 100 and like the ability to add a 1.4 if necessary. I can tell little or NO difference with or without the extender and the straight lens is wickedly sharp with great bokeh and contrast. I've compared it with my wife's 60mm Nikkor which has a steller rep and can't tell which lens took which image without checking the filename even with pixalpeeping. Most all reviews on this lens has it right at the top. As to build quality, it's as solid as any of my L's. My 2 cents.
-
A comment on macro lenses, I decided on the new Sigma 150 F2.8 and have patted myself on the back ever since. My 2 cents.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69557\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think options are great, especially if you can't afford your preferred choice or if you wish to be more modest with your spending. Everyone's constructive advice is a valuable asset here. 2 cents is much better than no sense.
I briefly researched the very good press on the Sigma 150 Macro. Impressive, indeed. For $600, I appreciate the great purchasing opportunity this offers many photographers. But let's face it, a car is a car and, as long as it runs, it will take you where you want to go. The decision to spend more money must depend on certain details and I don't wish to have an Acura hood ornament adorning my Lexus. (I own neither.)
Speaking of spending a fortune:
Much to my surprise, my $370, 77mm Singh-Ray LB Color Combo Polarizer arrived yesterday. I wasn't expecting it before the end of July. I've never paid this much for a polarizer before. Let's hope it outperforms most of the men I've encountered in my life.
I also bought the B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer (MRC) to compare. I'll report back.
ps The Bergeon #4657 dust blower also came highly recommended and I found one on the internet. I was told to avoid blowers that suck in dust and blow dust back into the camera. Apparently, the 5D requires a little more delicate maintenance.
-
What is the best Macro, you ask? Is sure does depend on the application, doesn't it.
Once again, preliminary tests surprised me. I thought for sure I would LOVE the EF 180mm 3.5 (it is a great lens) but for the bulk of my Macro shooting needs, I have to say the 100mm 2.8 seems to fit nicely right where I need it. I sure wish it came with "L" glass, even though the area of focus seems sharp enough to please me.
First, the 180mm is not user-friendly for me. I use the Linhof Ballhead with a Quick Release Plate and the plate has to be removed from the bottom of the 5D and mounted to the tripod mount on the lens. (A spare could easily fix this issue.) Second, the lens is really heavy and removing the tripod mount is extra work to achieve awkward hand holding. Third, it takes me too far away from my subjects. And fourth, the 2.8 on the 100mm achieves the "editorial" feel that is my style. The 3.5 just didn't quite give me the light and bokeh I was hoping to see.
For portraits, the 180mm took me 12 feet away from the subject and all I could get was a basic headshot. I have a great daylight studio with terrace but by NYC standards, it's a small space. 12 feet is nearing my maximum distance and I need more than just someone's head.
At 12 feet, the 100mm gave me a generous 3/4 body. If I want a tight headshot, all I have to do is move in closer to the model. The fall-off at 5.6 seemed just soft enough without losing too much detail.
The 180mm was an awful distance for editorial food. The camera has to be too far away to capture the outer edges of a single table setting and then there's no room to crop. The 100mm seemed perfect. I could sit at my favorite cafe in the South of France with little need to slide my chair back. With ease, I can get the whole table setting and/or come in tight on that lovely dessert. The 100mm feels VERY natural in my hands and I could see using it off the tripod a lot.
Other than butterflies, I have no desire to shoot insects or see insect hairs. I need a Macro that's as versatile as possible and gives me great "lifestyle" imagery. So far, the 100mm 2.8 looks like a keeper. Tomorrow I'll try using it with auto-focus.
-
I just completed the auto-focus test on the 100 and 180 Canon Macros and I've concluded that auto-focus on Macro lenses is a complete waste of my time.
I've also concluded, if you plan to use either the 100 or 180 Macro for portraiture (anything more distant than a head, neck, and upper-shoulder), expect the eyes to be out of focus on ALL your frames, no matter what the f-stop. After all, these are Macro lenses and, unless you're very close to your subject, the eye socket is too small a territory for AF to catch. Not to mention, I'm on a tripod, using a shutter-release cord.
Utilizing every AF Point that the 5D offers, none of them brought home the bacon on the more distant portrait. Furthermore, I can't tolerate composing my image to accommodate any camera's AF Point. What kind of photography is that? Even with the Ee Diopter Screen in my 5D, on Manual Focus, I could NOT get the model's eyes in focus from a distance. Every time I took a portrait that included head, torso, and hands, the eyes were NEVER in focus.
I imagine if I was tethered to my computer, I could probably get there if I kept tweaking. But, frankly, there are far better lenses for portrait work that waste much less time and provide spectacular results. Unless you're broke, why use a Macro for non-Macro portraits?
Now, when I brought that 100mm baby closer to the subject (face only) and manually focused on one eye, the results were MAGNIFICENT. Absolutely incredible. Every lash, every pore, and the reflection of the daylight window in the pupil as clear as glass. The bokeh was sublime. I was REALLY impressed, especially at 2.8, even more so at 3.2.
Macro lenses are designed to shoot close and nothing can take the place of a good Macro. That's why my next lens purchase will be the EF 100mm, 2.8. I'm getting really excited.
ps Now if only you didn't need two weeks lead time to rent the 85mm 1.2L in NYC. The results of that test will be coming as soon as I can get my hands on a lens.
-
A very generous friend in NYC let me try his 85 1.2 for an evening. It's a fantastic performer and the transition at shallow DOF from razor sharp to out of focus is lovely.
Thanks for sharing your lens experiences too!
Stephen
-
I have the 1D (Mk I) and 100/2.8 USM. I previously had 85/1.8 USM. When used for portraits (100/2.8 switch set to 'Far'), both lenses perform flawlessly in AF mode (I rarely use MF) so I have no idea why the former poster had any problems with it.
The only problems I found are where light levels are really low (e.g. a candle lit room), where the slower max aperture of the 100/2.8 USM starts to affect.
-
I have the 1D (Mk I) and 100/2.8 USM. I previously had 85/1.8 USM. When used for portraits (100/2.8 switch set to 'Far'), both lenses perform flawlessly in AF mode (I rarely use MF) so I have no idea why the former poster had any problems with it.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you, Yakim. In my haste to accomplish much, I neglected to notice that both lenses offer a Distance Limiter Switch, the switch Yakim referred to as "Far" (I wish I had come across this info sooner). On the 100mm 2.8 Macro, there are two settings: 0.31m — infinity (lazy8) and 0.48m — infinity. I did not change the switch when I shot my test from a distance.
Therefore, it is possible that one can get a model's eyes in focus if you put the Limiter Switch on 0.48 when shooting long. I'm sorry I did not have this information before I returned the lenses and this could easily explain my difficulties getting the models' eyes in focus.
This was my first experience with a Distance Limiter Switch.
-
In my haste to accomplish much, I neglected to notice that both lenses offer a Limiter Switch (I wish I had come across this info sooner). On the 100mm 2.8 Macro, there are two settings: 0.31m — infinity (lazy8) and 0.48m — infinity. I did not change the switch when I shot my test from a distance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now this is a useful piece of information. I've had experiences shooting crocodiles on the Daintre from a boat, with my 100-400 IS zoom, (wouldn't attempt close-up shots with a 100mm macro ), and was surprised that focussing was off. I remember thinking that perhaps the cause was due to that switch not being in the minimum position of 6.8 metres (from memory). At the same time, I was fairly sure that I was more than 6.8 metres away from the croc. Whatever, I'd bungled the shot.
-
I have the 5D.
My lenses:
17-40 f4L
24-105 f4L IS
100 2.8 macro
70-200 f2.8L IS
100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS
4/5 are zooms in order to avoid changing lenses or moving back and forth.
The macro is used mostly for office dermatology (ringlight) and flowers.
The 100-400 is going to Alaska next week for Eagles/Denali. My copy is sharp.
The 70-200 is simply the best lens I own. Incredible sharpness, light gathering.
The 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 and costs $700 less. The f4 works for me.
The 24-105 is my walkaround lens and doesn't vignette like my old 28-105 on FF.
My next purchase will be the 400mm 5.6L IS or the 200-400L IS, whichever actually comes out. Then the 100-400 will probably get sold to whoever wishes to pollute their sensor a bit more.
With regards to the primes, if I had that bug, I would get a 24, 50, 85, 135, 200, and oh what the heck, the 300 f2.8 (the gold standard of sharp) and the 500 f4 (weight for power, a couple discs less damage than the 600).
-
There is already a ton of info here, but I'll log a vote for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS -- absolutely amazing lens. 50 f/1.4 is also very nice. My kit contains those and the 24-105 F/4L and the 16-35 f/2.8L.
Next purchase will likely be the 24mm tilt and shift.
Good luck!
-
Very useful thread.
After mainly shooting medium format, (Mamiya 645afd) and Kodak 645 digital back, I am adding a Canon eos 5d and EF 24-105 mm kit to my armoury. Taking delivery tomorrow. Price is now a remarkable £2,089 for the camera and lens.
I am considering the 70-300mm DO due to its small size as I think this will work well for candid street shots.
85mm portrait lens looks a must have.
Will keep reading and let you know how the kit expands!
-
Mistybreeze,
I've had a 5D since it was introduced and absolutely love it. If I could choose just one lens for the camera it would be an 85mm f/1.2L II unquestionably. But until the big checks start rolling in I'm sticking with my 50mm f/1.4.
-
I owned the 24-70 2.8 but sold it because for general purpose the IS in the 24-105 4.0 IS was of great value to me. once corrected in DXO optics one cannot tell the difference between the two. If F2.8 is important and you generally use a tripod the 24-70 is a good choice but if F4.0 works for you, the IS is invaluable.
I use my 24 105 IS 90% of the time and the 70-200 2.8 IS 10 %, the 50 1.4 is so reasonable why not (at least that was my logic)
Marc
PS please don't underestimate the value of DXO optics I was coming from film when I decided to first get the 24-70 F2.8 because you only need IS for a long lens right? well I have learned otherwise. Also along the journey removing lens distortions with DXO optics made me evaluate the lenses after the distortions have been removed not before. You have to process the RAW file anyways so you might as well remove the lens distortions at the same time. Some otherwise soft images ended up tack sharp after the processing with incredible depth of field. It is a free 30 day trial and at the end they offer a $40 discount. so improving $3000 worth of lenses for less than 10% of their cost I'd say thats a good value.