Rate the EF 180mm L Macro

[inthedeck]

Just thought I would start a poll. I am interested in this lens, so I thought I would get a perspective on how people that own one like it.

[05Xrunner]

to expensive, HEAVY and i think it would take MUCH longer learning curve to master this one for the focal length and weight.

[inthedeck]

Right, but everything has a learning curve...even a 50mm 1.4 or a 100mm 2.8, etc. etc.

[Lester Wareham]

I voted that it is good for macro but not for portrate although in fact I don't have one.

It is not good for portrate as it is too long, even on full frame, a better choise would be the 100mm macro for this dual functionality.

Also I feel the 180mm although having a good macro reputation is too big and heavy for handheld use. However I know it is liked by lots of wildplant photographers so they don't have to get in too close and damage vulnrable habitate - they normally work with a tripod. I am sure there are lots of exceptions to this.

[05Xrunner]

if I had the money for that lens and i was not going with anything but canon...I would still choose the 100mm. Its got a 2.8 ap plus its much lighther...AWSOME IQ MUCH cheaper. I just couldnt see spending that much for the L macro...I am sure its great but you could get the 100 and another lens for the price...Or go 3rd party if u are dead set on longer focal length.

[inthedeck]

I guess, for me, I don't really delve in portraits, all that much. I do like macro work, and the 50mm (as sharp as it is) is a little too small. I may end up selling it...in order to go with something else. Time will tell.

[05Xrunner]

well my sigma 150 is VERY nice...super sharp and awsome build. No moving or rotating front HSM and full time MF
plus its MUCH cheaper paid 565 shipped from sigma4less.com

[inthedeck]

I hear ya 05X...the sigma does sound very good. However, in order to get the double rebate, with the cam. I ordered, I would like another lens from the rebate list to add to the arsenal...that's why I am not looking at the other's, right now.

[05Xrunner]

LOL then i would say the 100
LOL if you went with the 180 you are spending an extra 600bucks or so over the cost of the sigma to save what...50bucks or something..that doesnt sound like a deal..go for the 100 then

[inthedeck]

yeah, I thought about the 100...might still be a viable option. Cheap enough, as well...coupled with the rebates.

[Photolistic]

100mm is a TRUE macro anyways right?

[05Xrunner]

yes the 100mm 2.8 macro is..not the 100mm 2.0

[Double Negative]

It's okay... But it doesn't quite live up to "L" standards. The 100mm Macro and Sigma 105mm Macro both seem like better lenses all around.

[inthedeck]

Anyone else who owns this lens that may have any comments? Please help me choose...hehe.

[J Rabin]

Anyone else who owns this lens that may have any comments? Please help me choose...hehe.
OK, I was trying to stay away from this, but as an owner of the 180mm L macro I will say:
1. You buy this lens for its 1x macro working distance ONLY;
2. When focused on subjects from 1 meter down to 25 cm, in its macro range, this lens gets wonderful images with beautiful backgrounds that blur more absolutely than with shorter macro lenses, like: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Insects_Critters/Fall_Close_ups/slides/Mantis_Goldenrod_01.htm ;
3. But at "normal" photography distances, infinity focus if you will, this lens is weak in performance and resolving power.
Doubling for infinity focus use is the wrong reason to buy this lens in particular. Silly use. There, I said it. Find a different lens to get your rebate if you want a macro to do double duty at normal distances. Buy a 70-200 something and put a 500D on the front when you want close-ups, etc.

[mebailey]

I love it for macro. I have also used for a head shot or two. Its so sharp you may see alot more than you really want to on a subject's face.

[inthedeck]

I don't necessarily care that it's not good for regular portraits. I am most interested in it for macro purposes, solely. If it can double as a 'different' type of lens, well, then so be it.

The pictures of the mantids are great...thanks for sharing them. The world of macro is completely different, and that's what I think draws me to it. There's already enough people taking pictures of everything...there's very few macro photog's.

Ah, the decision continues.

[Lester Wareham]

OK, I was trying to stay away from this, but as an owner of the 180mm L macro I will say:
1. You buy this lens for its 1x macro working distance ONLY;
2. When focused on subjects from 1 meter down to 25 cm, in its macro range, this lens gets wonderful images with beautiful backgrounds that blur more absolutely than with shorter macro lenses, like: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Insects_Critters/Fall_Close_ups/slides/Mantis_Goldenrod_01.htm ;
3. But at "normal" photography distances, infinity focus if you will, this lens is weak in performance and resolving power.
Doubling for infinity focus use is the wrong reason to buy this lens in particular. Silly use. There, I said it. Find a different lens to get your rebate if you want a macro to do double duty at normal distances. Buy a 70-200 something and put a 500D on the front when you want close-ups, etc.

If you want something to double for infinity use the EF 100mm macro is strong in both areas.

The DOF with a longer lens will be larger for a given set f-stop, turning the conventional wisdom on its head, because of the smaller pupilary magnification due to the telephoto contruction.

If you take into account the light loss due to magnification and use the effective f-stop DOF is independent of pupilary magnification and only depends on magnification.

The 180mm is physically longer than the 100mm but I would still expect its pupilary magnification to be less at a given focus distance.

[baybud]

I couldn't really say as i've never used mine for portrait. However i find the 180L one of the best lenses i have ever used, it is better wide open than the 300 2.8 IS and the lack of chromatic abberation is astounding.
The image is also almost perfect edge to edge "only tested on 1.6 though"
All in all a stunning lens, the AF is also very fast when used at the focus limiter set "i think its 1.4 m- 00" The speed certainly equals that of the 300, but when it hunts it REALLY hunts lol.

I do not for one minute regret buying it, the DOF is amazingly shallow @180 when used in macro, however you get the working distance so its all trade offs.

[baybud]

OK, I was trying to stay away from this, but as an owner of the 180mm L macro I will say:
1. You buy this lens for its 1x macro working distance ONLY;
2. When focused on subjects from 1 meter down to 25 cm, in its macro range, this lens gets wonderful images with beautiful backgrounds that blur more absolutely than with shorter macro lenses, like: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Insects_Critters/Fall_Close_ups/slides/Mantis_Goldenrod_01.htm ;
3. But at "normal" photography distances, infinity focus if you will, this lens is weak in performance and resolving power.
Doubling for infinity focus use is the wrong reason to buy this lens in particular. Silly use. There, I said it. Find a different lens to get your rebate if you want a macro to do double duty at normal distances. Buy a 70-200 something and put a 500D on the front when you want close-ups, etc.

Me thinks you must have had a bad copy, mine is amazing @ those distances, certainly as good as my 35L, 85 L and better than my 300 2.8 L

[farrukh]

Oops sorry, by mistake i selected 10 in the poll but i wanted to select radio button 1

[cwphoto]

It's okay... But it doesn't quite live up to "L" standards. The 100mm Macro and Sigma 105mm Macro both seem like better lenses all around.

One of Canon's sharpest lenses and you don't think it meets the L standards?

Gimme a break!

[Double Negative]

One of Canon's sharpest lenses and you don't think it meets the L standards?

Gimme a break!

Just a tad, but nevertheless, yes. It's soft wide open, slow to focus and the resolution is up there, but not quite as sharp as you'd think. Now granted, most of this really doesn't matter in macro as you almost never shoot wide open and typically focus manually - and it's still a sharp lens. Just for an L, you'd expect a little more. The 100mm is a better bargain (and sharper) unless you need the focal length (DoF/working distance).

[John_B]

inthedeck,
If you plan on doing the majority of macro photos with use of a tripod then the 180L has a much higher value, however if you want to do a majority of macro handheld then anything larger then 100mm will have drawbacks. Also the 100mm macro has more macro options ex. a set of Kenko extension tubes with the 100mm will give you 2:1 macro (not as simple with the 180L). You could always throw on a 2xTC (if a Canon you will need a 12mm extension tube to get it to fit the 100, not needed with the 180L) which will also give you 2:1 on both lenses + if you add the extension tube set (Kenko with the 100mm) you can get 4:1 Of course this is just my opinion ;)
I personally choose the 100mm for weight & size (+ cost) issues. I also do mostly handheld shots so the 180L was not worth its cost in price and weight to me.
Good Luck with whatever you get. :)

[inthedeck]

Thanks for the info. John_B. I will be taking that into consideration. Still unsure about 'the next lens' as of this point. But, I still have a bit of time to decide, so, I am in no particular rush.

[cwphoto]

Just a tad, but nevertheless, yes. It's soft wide open, slow to focus and the resolution is up there, but not quite as sharp as you'd think. Now granted, most of this really doesn't matter in macro as you almost never shoot wide open and typically focus manually - and it's still a sharp lens. Just for an L, you'd expect a little more. The 100mm is a better bargain (and sharper) unless you need the focal length (DoF/working distance).

You must have a crap one then (ah, it appears you don't even own one) - the 100 is a good lens but it ain't in the league of the 180; the sharpest Macro lens there is.

I could care less about the focus speed on such a specialised lens - for portraits grab the 135 L instead.

Do yourself a favour and re-visit a copy the way Canon intended it to be - I guarantee you'll change your tune.

[baybud]

You must have a crap one then (ah, it appears you don't even own one) - the 100 is a good lens but it ain't in the league of the 180; the sharpest Macro lens there is.

I could care less about the focus speed on such a specialised lens - for portraits grab the 135 L instead.

Do yourself a favour and re-visit a copy the way Canon intended it to be - I guarantee you'll change your tune.

i tend to agree.

For my own copies i would say my mp-e @ 1x setting is only a tad superior to the 180L, This is mainly in CA areas, the 180 is good but the 65 is amazing.

My 180L stands next to my other glass in resolution, it's the sharpest lens i have wide open, i think it may be there are some dodgy copies or that photozone.de review has been at it again.
It's an amazing lens.

[inthedeck]

Too bad the MP-e isn't on the rebate list, otherwise, I would be all over that one. Thanks for all the input.

[mrmarklin]

It's sharp as a Macro, I've taken some very nice shots. It can photograph stuff you can't see with your naked eye. I have no idea how it would be as a portrait lens, since I've never taken a portrait with one! It is probably too long.

With regard to tripod use, it's the only way I've done Macro so far, and it's hard for me to conceive of doing it any other way. So the weight was never a consideration in my purchase. I've been totally satisfied.

[Double Negative]

You must have a crap one then (ah, it appears you don't even own one) - the 100 is a good lens but it ain't in the league of the 180; the sharpest Macro lens there is.

I could care less about the focus speed on such a specialised lens - for portraits grab the 135 L instead.

Do yourself a favour and re-visit a copy the way Canon intended it to be - I guarantee you'll change your tune.

To be fair, no - I don't own one but used a friend's quite a while back on the D30, and for a short time at that. I've also read several reviews on it (including the infamous photozone.de one) so that may have further colored my perception. I'll definitely try to get a hold of it - or another copy again.

Could also have been due to my crap lighting at the time. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I *want* to like it... I'll be in the market for a macro lens in the not-too-distant future. So far it's still leaning towards the 100mm or Sigma 105mm but I like having working distance and shoot more outside than in the studio, so...

[mebailey]

I actually rarely use mine with a tripod! Since I got the MT-24EX I can just carry the whole thing around and shoot off hand. I have gotten some good results and saves me time setting up with a shy creature. I shoot everything at f10-11 and let the ring-light make the exposure good.

[mrmarklin]

I actually rarely use mine with a tripod! Since I got the MT-24EX I can just carry the whole thing around and shoot off hand. I have gotten some good results and saves me time setting up with a shy creature. I shoot everything at f10-11 and let the ring-light make the exposure good.


I don't have a Macro set-up for flash. Do they work well?

[mebailey]

I don't have a Macro set-up for flash. Do they work well?
I picture is worth a 1000 (or more) words.....
This is a handheld shot that I would have missed if I had to set up a tripod. There is also a ~100% crop so you can see the mite in his ear!

[mrmarklin]

That's pretty awesome, and why I buy Canon lenses!

[baybud]

To be fair, no - I don't own one but used a friend's quite a while back on the D30, and for a short time at that. I've also read several reviews on it (including the infamous photozone.de one) so that may have further colored my perception. I'll definitely try to get a hold of it - or another copy again.

Could also have been due to my crap lighting at the time. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I *want* to like it... I'll be in the market for a macro lens in the not-too-distant future. So far it's still leaning towards the 100mm or Sigma 105mm but I like having working distance and shoot more outside than in the studio, so...

i promice you wont be dissapointed, i can't say i truly understand what the photozone.de was on about quite frankly. I can honestly say its pretty much the sharpest lens in my arsenal stopped down "equalling the 35 85 L" and wide open it has an edge over the 300 2.8.
Its just received sooo much bad press, although i think the fred miranda user reviews paint a much truer picture.

[inthedeck]

Fantastic image there mebailey. Talk about sharp...and on point! It really is becoming a contender, along side the 400mm L 5.6 prime. Though, I can only afford one, till next year...or so...the decision becomes harder and harder.

[baybud]

Fantastic image there mebailey. Talk about sharp...and on point! It really is becoming a contender, along side the 400mm L 5.6 prime. Though, I can only afford one, till next year...or so...the decision becomes harder and harder.

i think both lenses are excellent, really depends where you think you will get the most use/enjoyment.
Im hoping to get a 400 5.6 soon :)

[JNunn]

Go with the 100mm Macro. I love mine. The 180 is just too heavy & expensive IMHO. I picked up one at a dealer and cpouldn't believe how heavy it was...and awkward! It would have to be on a tripod most if not all of the time.

[PetKal]

i promice you wont be dissapointed, i can't say i truly understand what the photozone.de was on about quite frankly. I can honestly say its pretty much the sharpest lens in my arsenal stopped down "equalling the 35 85 L" and wide open it has an edge over the 300 2.8.
Its just received sooo much bad press, although i think the fred miranda user reviews paint a much truer picture.

Very puzzling indeed, because the PZ lens assessments I have found to be excellent.....and they invariably correlate with my own findings very well. The FM users reviews are just that....mostly platitudes along the lines of "Tack sharp", "built like a tank", etc.

[Belmondo]

There are better portrait lenses, but there aren't many better macro lenses, at least in the Canon world.

[Lester Wareham]

Very puzzling indeed, because the PZ lens assessments I have found to be excellent.....and they invariably correlate with my own findings very well. The FM users reviews are just that....mostly platitudes along the lines of "Tack sharp", "built like a tank", etc.

The photozone tests are good and also correlate well with my own tests, but they are done at low magnification, aberations can be quite different close in so lens macro performance may not be well indicated by these tests.

I too have heard on several forums complaints that the 180 is fine in close but disapointing close to infinity and many more that say it is just fine.

I agree with your comments about "platitudes", most of the consumer feedback sites are like that and have little or no comparative judgement let alone controlled testing. I find these sites largely worthless.

[PetKal]

There are better portrait lenses, but there aren't many better macro lenses, at least in the Canon world.

Well said Tommy, that may be the best assessment yet of the cursed lens.

[PetKal]

The photozone tests are good and also correlate well with my own tests, but they are done at low magnification, aberations can be quite different close in so lens macro performance may not be well indicated by these tests.

I too have heard on several forums complaints that the 180 is fine in close but disapointing close to infinity and many more that say it is just fine.

I agree with your comments about "platitudes", most of the consumer feedback sites are like that and have little or no comparative judgement let alone controlled testing. I find these sites largely worthless.

Yes, Lester, that's what perhaps Jack R. was referring to a few posts back. I certainly bow to your assessment of its macro performance in general as well as Jack's specifically, because of your demonstrated expertise in the field of macrophotography.

However, when it comes to the goodness of the 180L in a general telephoto sense, I'll let you know in a few days how I feel about mine. (As soon as I am done with the "Condyk Photo Project" which seems to be absobing all of my daily shooting time allocation at present;) )

[Lester Wareham]

Yes, Lester, that's what perhaps Jack R. was referring to a few posts back. I certainly bow to your assessment of its macro performance in general as well as Jack's specifically, because of your demonstrated expertise in the field of macrophotography.

However, when it comes to the goodness of the 180L in a general telephoto sense, I'll let you know in a few days how I feel about mine. (As soon as I am done with the "Condyk Photo Project" which seems to be absobing all of my daily shooting time allocation at present;) )

I'm sure it will be a great lens. To be honest I lust after it (it would be my third macro lens), but I feel most of the time I would not use it much due to issues of practicality, but this is a personal view.

If Canon added IS without sacrificing IQ it would be a much more viable option for me and would replace using my 300 f4 IS + tubes.

[J Rabin]

Me thinks you must have had a bad copy, mine is amazing @ those distances, certainly as good as my 35L, 85 L and better than my 300 2.8 L
No. And I had my 180mm calibrated by Canon after comparing it to my EF-S 60mm macro. For my use the 180mm f/3.5L macro has SIX wonderful features:
1. Wonderful working distance that only a long throw macro provides.
2. Wonderful out-of-focus background blur Gaussian optical design. A long macro absolutely blurs the background more absolutely (hey, I like the way I said that).
3. A 180mm f/3.5L feature whereby it only loses 1 1/3 stops of effective aperture light at 1:1, not two stops like most lenses at 1:1, so the f/3.5 is no disadvanatge compared to an f/2.8 lens at 1:1.
4. The ability to eliminate distractions in a scene and get the plane of focus where you want it compared to shorter focal length macro lenses.
5. The ability to get 140% life size at 25cm working distance, or 1x life size at very long working distances with the Canon 1.4xTC (manual focus only at close distances).
6. Comes with the lens collar, which can also be used wih the Canon 100mm with an adaptor. A lens collar is just about essential convenience. (Does that makes sense?)

While all macro lenses are stellar, and will make every user happy, each has a design strength. If features above are important, get the darn lens.

BUT, just me comparing the three at normal photography distances, I found the Photozone review SPOT ON. Very dispassionate accurate assessment. My EF-S 60mm macro yields me more resolving power at normal distances, followed by the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, followed by the 180mm macro last. That's just my observation.

One reason to like the 180mm is to shoot other things - snakes and what-not - while out doing macro without lens change. Here I was staring at a fat 8 foot black rat snake in the woods out pollinator shooting one morning: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Insects_Critters/slides/BlackRatSnake.htm. Too much handshake though.

Enjoy, Jack

[kross]

this lens rocks for macro and portrait(if u dun have 85mm or 100mm or 135mm) heh...

cheers....

[PetKal]

One reason to like the 180mm is to shoot other things - snakes and what-not - while out doing macro without lens change. Here I was staring at a fat 8 foot black rat snake in the woods out pollinator shooting one morning: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Insects_Critters/slides/BlackRatSnake.htm. Too much handshake though.

Enjoy, Jack

Jack, that might have been "one reason" for you, but for me that was the deciding factor in finally ending prevarications about my acquisition of the lens. :D Good snake image, BTW.

[KevC]

I don't have one so I'm not gonna vote. I think the 100/2.8 macro is a far better deal. I can't imagine it being any sharper, I suppose the only reason one would buy the 180 is to get the working distance.

There's also the sigma 150/2.8 macro that is a good alternative.

[Lester Wareham]

...
3. A 180mm f/3.5L feature whereby it only loses 1 1/3 stops of effective aperture light at 1:1, not two stops like most lenses at 1:1, so the f/3.5 is no disadvanatge compared to an f/2.8 lens at 1:1.
....


Thats a feature of internal focus macro lenses and happens because the focal length gets shorter as you focus close. Its quite extreem with macros loosing about 30% of the infinity focus focal length. I noticed the same effect with the 100mm.

Depth of field is constant with effective f-stop for a given magnification so you get nothing for free anyway except a brighter viewfinder.


.....
Very dispassionate accurate assessment. My EF-S 60mm macro yields me more resolving power at normal distances, followed by the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, followed by the 180mm macro last. That's just my observation.

Enjoy, Jack

Yes the 60mm macro is VERY sharp in the centre which is where it counts for macro work as the field of view reduces with the magnification. This is also observable from the Canon MTF data which I find is very representative of measured performance.

[Lester Wareham]

Jack, that might have been "one reason" for you, but for me that was the deciding factor in finally ending prevarications about my acquisition of the lens. :D Good snake image, BTW.

That is a darn good reason!! :lol: ;)

[rklepper]

Okay, how many who voted actually own the lens or have even used it?

[Belmondo]

Me.

[cwphoto]

Me too.

[busterboy]

Okay, how many who voted actually own the lens or have even used it?


/holds hand up..:D

[Double Negative]

(I didn't vote)

[begovics]

Ok, I owned this lens for a 2-3 months and I guess, it was ok to vote. Here is my set done with this lens on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bega_images/sets/72157594217230645/

[mebailey]

Own it and use it regularly.

[PetKal]

Okay, how many who voted actually own the lens or have even used it?

Klep, you trying to be a smart*** again, or stir up some trouble and acrimony around here?:confused: ;)

[Larry Weinman]

I have both the Canon 100 f 2.8 macro and the Canon 180L macro. Both are fine lenses with the edge going to the 180 both for sharpness, contrast, color and bokeh. I bought it primarily for macro but I have occcasionly used it for portraits where it gives a certain perspective unatainable with other lenses. I also use it as a medium-long telephoto with excellent results. If the focus limiter switch is set for longer distances it seems to focus about as fast as anything else I have used. As far as macro is concerned, I have previously owned the Tamron 90mm f 2.8 and the Sigma 180mm f 3.5. I also had extended use with a Sigma 150mm macro. All of these are very good lenses and from what I hear it is difficult to get a bad macro lens but the Canon 100 and 180 are definitely a little better. Some people complain about the weight of this lens but it is no heavier then the Canon 70-200 f 2.8 IS and this lens is hand held all the time. The Canon 180 although an excellent lens that can be used for various types of photography is really a specialized lens. If you are doing allot of macro then I think the $1250 price is justified. If you will only be using it occasionally then I would agree with one of the writers above that suggested a Canon 100mm macro or a 70-200 f 2.8 IS with a 500D.

[J Rabin]

For Lester Wareham:
I ordered the ring adaptor spare part so I can use the 180mm and 65MPE tripod collar B on the 100 macro.
Thanks for providing POTN members the spare part order number for using the collar on the 100mm.
No photo shop stocks it, nor would order it, said Canon would no sell it to them. I ordered it directly from Canon spare parts - $27 USD + shipping.
$35 USD, but now I'll be able to use the ring on both lenses.

Went out & used the 180mm macro at normal distances on piece about farmers' enduring faith. I am not much on the the whole B&W conversion thing, but these were focused on the granite cross grave marker, with varying DOF:
http://postit.rutgers.edu/uploads/Farmers%5FFaith%5F1.jpg http://postit.rutgers.edu/uploads/Farmers%5FFaith%5F2.jpg
Composition sucks, but the lens is sharp, tripod mounted. These reductions don't do justice, but the originals have all the granite texture at 15 meters.

Thanks, Jack

[Lester Wareham]

For Lester Wareham:
I ordered the ring adaptor spare part so I can use the 180mm and 65MPE tripod collar B on the 100 macro.
Thanks for providing POTN members the spare part order number for using the collar on the 100mm.
No photo shop stocks it, nor would order it, said Canon would no sell it to them. I ordered it directly from Canon spare parts - $27 USD + shipping.
$35 USD, but now I'll be able to use the ring on both lenses.


Glad to be able to be able to help.

[rklepper]

It would be interesting to know how many taking part in this poll own this lens or have even ever used it. I can tell by the reading that at least most of you have not.

[PetKal]

It would be interesting to know how many taking part in this poll own this lens or have even ever used it. I can tell by the reading that at least most of you have not.

So....:confused: What are you really saying, Klep ?

[Lester Wareham]

It would be interesting to know how many taking part in this poll own this lens or have even ever used it. I can tell by the reading that at least most of you have not.

Well I owned up to not having the 180mm (yet; must complete the macro trio!) in my first post. However I have carfully studied the macro options from Canon.

However, it is still possible to make judgments on the usefullness of the focal length for portrature (one of the OPs origional questions) without owning it.

It is also possible, if one has the experience with a range of equipment, to make comments on handling tradeoffs based on size and wieght.

Naturally if one does not have a peice of kit one can only circulate hearsay about things like IQ, build quality and reliability.

However, few people do detailed IQ testing so I think most IQ judgements may not be well informed, particuly unless the respondent has both lenses. Otherwise all one can do is refer to test results.

[PetKal]

Well I owned up to not having the 180mm (yet; must complete the macro trio!) in my first post. However I have carfully studied the macro options from Canon.

However, it is still possible to make judgments on the usefullness of the focal length for portrature (one of the OPs origional questions) without owning it.

It is also possible, if one has the experience with a range of equipment, to make comments on handling tradeoffs based on size and wieght.

Naturally if one does not have a peice of kit one can only circulate hearsay about things like IQ, build quality and reliability.

However, few people do detailed IQ testing so I think most IQ judgements may not be well informed, particuly unless the respondent has both lenses. Otherwise all one can do is refer to test results.

I think that little essay of yours is not only very aptly and movingly phrased, it also scintillates with well reasoned thoughts. Lester, I think it behooves the elder folks like ourselves to help our younger colleagues such as Klepper and WuWei0 with their continuing scholarly development.;)

[Lester Wareham]

I think that little essay of yours is not only very aptly and movingly phrased, it also scintillates with well reasoned thoughts. Lester, I think it behooves the elder folks like ourselves to help our younger colleagues such as Klepper and WuWei0 with their continuing scholarly development.;)

Damm, you made me chuckle so much I fell out my chair!.
:lol:

Hay, the docs a year younger than me! That must make me a youngster too .. Whoooo!.

[PetKal]

Damm, you made me chuckle so much I fell out my chair!.
:lol:

Hay, the docs a year younger than me! That must make me a youngster too .. Whoooo!.

Damn...that makes me feel lonely and isolated.....thankfully, there is always Belmondo left for that reciprocal geriatric comfort.

[Belmondo]

[/b]

Damn...that makes me feel lonely and isolated.....thankfully, there is always Belmondo left for that reciprocal geriatric comfort.Eh? You'll have to speak up, sonny.

[Lester Wareham]

Eh? You'll have to speak up, sonny.

Now that does make me feel young,.... damm moved to fast and hurt my back, .. hang on ... give me a second. Ahhh.