Medium tele for 1Ds

[Dave C]

I`m in the market for a medium tele lens for my 1Ds. I have a 50mm 1.8 that I`ve used with tubes but find the closeness just too much and my 28-135 is a touch lacking in speed and quality with the 1DS.

I want it as a keep on the camera lens( I`ve got a 70-200 2.8 Is and it`s super but very heavy and stands out like a sore thumb)

the 135 f2 L looks good but is slightly above budget

the 100 f2 gets good results and is a possible and I wonder how it will be with tubes for flower close ups?

Obviously the other contender is the 100 2.8 macro which would solve the close up problems but a stop slower, and then there are the Sigma etc macro lenses?

I have a 1.4 11 extender and wonder of it can be used with any of the above.

Thanks for any thoughts.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Dave,

I know you said the 135/2 is over budget, but I'd urge you to reconsider. It is a great lens and it works with the 1.4x extender. Here's a shot I took with this combo on my D30:

http://www.pixelpixel.org/images/linked/fm/021122-0021.jpg

Also this is what Michael Reichmann who shoots with a 1Ds had to say about this lens:

One closing equipment thought. The Canon 135mm f/2L is a relatively new lens in my arsenal. I bought it for doing documentary work where its speed and relatively compact size for its focal length will come in handy. I knew that the lens had a sterling reputation. But I was bowled over by the image quality that I saw when making prints the following week. I thought that the 70-200mm zoom was very good, but this lens is in another league. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/big-sur.shtml)

Regards,

[Dave C]

Roger

Well that image of yours does look good, I read the reports on the lens and it shines and one guy said that he didn`t want to upset Leica users but it was on par with the 90f2 apo `M`, I had that lens before moving up to MF and it was superb in every way and the cropability from that small 35mm neg with that lens was outstanding so it must be good. I follow Michaels web site and have great respect for him and his tests and for him to say it`s better than the 70-200 2.8 IS it must be good. I`ve got a set of tubes so I suppose at f2 it could be used with those and give good results? and the fact that it can take the 1.4 would give me the start of a reasonable tele as well. What I like about the 70-200 is the ability to throw the background out of focus and with the 100f2 it would be even better. I also have an old mirror type attachment(depending on your age you might remember them) it looks just like a lens with an apeture at the side and a fixed mirror at 45 degrees, it screws into the filter ring on your lens and allows you to take images at right angles to where your camera is pointing so that might work good with the f2. I`ll go back and read the reviews(youv`e got my juices going now) bread and water for a while me thinks

[Dave C]

Correction ! That should have read 135 f2.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Dave,

I've got some more pictures on my site taken with the 135/2. I'm restructuring the site, and it so happens that 3 out the 4 galleries that I have moved over so far contain shots taken only with this lens - the exception is "Pieces of "Amsterdam".

Even with me behind the camera, the qualities of this lens can be seen: crispness, contrast, clarity an colour - the 4 C's. :)

You must excuse the inconsistency in the gallery format - a consequence of the redesign waiting to be fixed.

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/index.htm - oh yes, and the tango images featured on the home page and others are also with the 135/2.

Regards,

[Dave C]

Roger

Great site, I can see what you mean about the 135, it `s very sharp. I will decide over the weekend. In the mean time take a look at my site
http://www.pbase.com/davechilvers

Cheers
Dave

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Dave C wrote:
Roger

Great site, I can see what you mean about the 135, it `s very sharp. I will decide over the weekend. In the mean time take a look at my site
http://www.pbase.com/davechilvers

Cheers
Dave

An eclectic mixture you have in your galleries. :) You have captured the light beautifully in some of your landscapes.

Don't forget to let us know your decision.

Regards,

[Dave C]

Roger

I decided in the end to go for the 100 2.8 macro because it has got to perform better than the 28-138 for close ups and will give me a walkabout tele but they are in short supply in the UK.
Thanks for your help and I`ll let you know what it`s like on the 1Ds.

[Dave C]

Hiya Roger

Got the 100 macro, managed to get a series 7 ring - 58mm to use my old DOI ring flash with absolutely no cut off(even with a filter in place)

Camera support is needed to get the best from it. I did some tests

1. hand held against the 50 1.8, 100 macro,28-135 and the 70-200 2.8 IS.
50 came first, 100mm second, 70-200 3rd and lastly(but very close) 28-135.

I was then told that handholding wasn`t good enough for the test so did another couple tripod, mirror up and remote release with the results.

2. (50 not used because of space) 100 clear winner, 70-200 clear second and 28-135 clear 3rd.

Regards
Dave

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Dave,

Glad to hear that you got the macro flash working. I was in my Canon dealer the other day and noticed that they wanted over 550 of my British pounds for the Canon macro flash - gulp.

Can't say that I'm at all surprised by your results: the specialist lens was odds-on favourite.

DOF is so small as you move to 1x magnification that a tripod is really a must. I've occasionally played around holding the 70-200 with the 500D filter on the front, but I wouldn't do it if I had to pay for the film. :) And the 50/1.8 with ext tubes has no working distance to speak of.

You must get spectacular macro detail with the 1Ds. Can we expect some examples?

Regards,