Aug 30, 2013 03:23 | #1 Hey guys once again its me Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
LOG IN TO REPLY |
YashicaFX2 Goldmember 1,003 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2013 Location: A quiet place in the country. More info | Aug 30, 2013 03:30 | #2  Permanent banI don't think looking at your current gear gives us any clue at all about what lens you should buy. Perhaps some information about what you would like to shoot, but can't, with your current gear would help. But, if you had that information, you'd have your answer, wouldn't you? Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 30, 2013 03:36 | #3 YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16252584  I don't think looking at your current gear gives us any clue at all about what lens you should buy. Perhaps some information about what you would like to shoot, but can't, with your current gear would help. But, if you had that information, you'd have your answer, wouldn't you? Sure i know what to shoot. The problem is i want to shoot macro as much as i want to go longer for moon/astro shots aswell as travel lens with its long reach and portability of the 70-300L. Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
LOG IN TO REPLY |
YashicaFX2 Goldmember 1,003 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2013 Location: A quiet place in the country. More info | Aug 30, 2013 03:57 | #4 Permanent banI don't do macro, so I have no relevant comments about that. Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 30, 2013 04:06 | #5 YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16252617 I don't do macro, so I have no relevant comments about that. As far as telephoto goes, I wouldn't find the 70-300L long enough. I have the 100-400L and find it too short sometimes, whether on the 5D or 60D. The 70-300L is reviewed to be much sharper, with faster focus and better IS than the 100-400L. It is also smaller, lighter and uses a rotating, not trombone, zoom. The IQ of the 100-400L is easily good enough for me. It's implementation of IS is somewhat antiquated and ineffective. It is just not much help where you need it most, at 400mm. I get a stop, perhaps 2, once in a while. That said, shooting at 400mm is completely different than shooting at 100mm. There is a bit of a learning curve involved. As most folks buy a telephoto for reach, I would suggest foregoing the higher IQ of the 70-300L for the longer 100-400L. Your needs may not match mine, however. For things far away it cant be long enough i believe you. But the push-pull zoom on the 100-400 paired with its old IS system is an indicator for me, that i wont be satisfied with it. I may lose 100mm reach but on my 650D its something like 480mm which is much more than i have now and should suffice for what im doing. Im not going to do high-end wildlife shots or so, its just nice to have a lens which is very versatile (which i think the 70-300 is). Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
LOG IN TO REPLY |
YashicaFX2 Goldmember 1,003 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2013 Location: A quiet place in the country. More info | Aug 30, 2013 04:30 | #6 Permanent banI think I would go with the tele first, whichever one you choose. The MFD on the 100-400 is about 6 feet. You can do some flower and bug work with that lens if you shoot near MFD and at 400mm. I don't know the MFD of the 70-300L. Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 30, 2013 04:37 | #7 davidfarina wrote in post #16252592 i want to go longer for moon/astro shots The 70-300 will barely be long enough for Moon shots. You need around 2500mm to fill a FF image with the Moon. And for any other Astro shots you want to be wide angle (for Milky Way, Startrails, Constellations) or have a tracking mount. Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 30, 2013 05:05 | #8 YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16252654 I think I would go with the tele first, whichever one you choose. The MFD on the 100-400 is about 6 feet. You can do some flower and bug work with that lens if you shoot near MFD and at 400mm. I don't know the MFD of the 70-300L. Just curious. Why are you considering the 100L macro instead of any of the other three? Which other macro lenses? the 60mm is too short i think. Ill have to come very close to my subjects.. Then the 50mm 2.5 isnt a "real" macro since 1:2. The 180mm macro is a bit over my budget and only just f/3.5 which is a pitty when i want to use it as a portrait lens from time to time. Have i forgot something? Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 30, 2013 05:06 | #9 hollis_f wrote in post #16252662 The 70-300 will barely be long enough for Moon shots. You need around 2500mm to fill a FF image with the Moon. And for any other Astro shots you want to be wide angle (for Milky Way, Startrails, Constellations) or have a tracking mount. Its less to fill the frame with the moon more just for fun because with the 135mm on crop i cant see even the moon xD Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 30, 2013 06:58 | #10 Which other macro lenses? the 60mm is too short i think. That depends on what kind of macro you are planning to shoot and which of your bodies you intend to use for macro, which you haven't said. One of my macro lenses is the 60mm, and I get a lot out of it. However, assuming ~100mm is a reasonable length, there are several high quality cheaper alternatives, including the Canon 100 non-L, which costs half as much and is virtually as good optically. I own the 100L, but I think it is steep for a novice, given that you won't know until you gain some experience whether you actually enjoy macro (which is very demanding). Check out my photos at http://dkoretz.smugmug.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 30, 2013 07:07 | #11 paddler4 wrote in post #16252843 That depends on what kind of macro you are planning to shoot and which of your bodies you intend to use for macro, which you haven't said. One of my macro lenses is the 60mm, and I get a lot out of it. However, assuming ~100mm is a reasonable length, there are several high quality cheaper alternatives, including the Canon 100 non-L, which costs half as much and is virtually as good optically. I own the 100L, but I think it is steep for a novice, given that you won't know until you gain some experience whether you actually enjoy macro (which is very demanding). I want to use both lenses on my t4i to get most magnification/reach out of it. However the 70-300 could be used on the fullframe too since it is a very versatile FL. Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
LOG IN TO REPLY |
YashicaFX2 Goldmember 1,003 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2013 Location: A quiet place in the country. More info | Aug 30, 2013 07:53 | #12 Permanent bandavidfarina wrote in post #16252688 Which other macro lenses? the 60mm is too short i think. Ill have to come very close to my subjects.. Then the 50mm 2.5 isnt a "real" macro since 1:2. The 180mm macro is a bit over my budget and only just f/3.5 which is a pitty when i want to use it as a portrait lens from time to time. Have i forgot something? The 180 macro at f/3.5 will do a better job of blurring out the background that the 100L at f/2.8. I think I heard somewhere that it focuses very slowly though. Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 30, 2013 08:37 | #13 YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16252934 The 180 macro at f/3.5 will do a better job of blurring out the background that the 100L at f/2.8. I think I heard somewhere that it focuses very slowly though. Okay maybe, but i dont think i would use it much since 180mm is a strange focal length. The 100mm is more versatile and not only focussed to macro work. At the second point when i get the 70-300 i dont need a lens as long as 180mm.. Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amfoto1 Cream of the Crop 10,331 posts Likes: 146 Joined Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, California More info | Aug 30, 2013 10:12 | #15 If you stick with the L, you might want to get the 70-300L first. You can always get some macro extension tubes to use with it, to be able to focus much closer, at least near macro. But, I agree... it's not really long enough for moon shots and not the type lens you're very likely to use for astrophotography. It's also not really long enough for a lot of wildlife, particularly smaller critters and birds.  IS on a macro lens is kind of silly, IMO. If you get serious about macro, you'll be using a monopod or tripod a lot of the time... Or flash. All of which make IS, which is nowhere near as effective at higher magnifications anyway, less necessary. On the 100mm, IS is most useful when using the lens for non-macro purposes (and you already have a 135L, which you'll probably be using instead for it's faster AF performance.) I would not spend the extra money for IS on the 100mm. I'd put the money saved into a tripod mounting ring for the lens, which is far more practical for macro work. The image quality of the 100L vs the 100/2.8 USM is virtually identical. Both are excellent. The build quality of both is top notch, too. Even though it's not an L, the 100/2.8 USM is identical build to the 180/3.5L. IMO, the most significant difference between them are that the 100/2.8 USM's lens hood is rather large (and is sold separately)... and the 100L has a somewhat enhanced Focus Limiter feature (three ranges, vs two on the non-L). Because I rarely use my 100 Macro for non-macro purposes, the IS doesn't do much for me, so I won't be upgrading any time soon (unless I win the lottery and just have money to burn). You really might want to consider an alternative. For less than the price of the 70-300L ($1400 US) or little more than the 100L alone.... you could get both the 70-300 IS USM (non-L, $450 US) and the 100/2.8 USM ($550 US) plus their lens hoods (unlike the L, sold separately: $44 and $33, respectively, or less if you buy Chinese knock-offs). The tripod ring for the 100/2.8 USM runs about $160, while for the 100L it's about $190, for Canon OEM in both cases. There are Chinese knock-offs for either one, that cost about $50. Another alternative would be the 70-300 DO IS USM, which is more compact. But it's close to the same price as the 70-300L. Comparing images from the three 70-300s, you will have a really hard time telling them apart. All three actually have quite good IQ. They also all have fast AF. The differences are: Build quality of the 70-300L is definitely the best. Of course, at 3X the price, it had better be. The 70-300 DO is quite a bit smaller and lighter, unfortunately it's IS isn't as effective as the other two. The 70-300 IS USM (non-L, non-DO) is slightly longer than the DO, but actually weighs less. It's a little plasticky, Canon mid-grade quality. Although it's got fast, accurate USM focus, it's somewhat a hybrid because it can't do FTM or Full Time Manual override of focus. You have to turn off AF at the switch before manual foucsing the lens (and the focus ring rotates during AF). But, again, you won't see any significant difference in your images. Later, if you find you use either or both these lenses a lot and they meet your needs really well, you can upgrade if you wish. Yes, the 180/3.5L macro does blur down backgrounds strongly. In fact it's got potential for incredibly shallow depth of field, as you can see here...  The 180mm is a considerably more difficult macro lens to work with, than either of the 100mm. The 180mm is more of a dedicated macro lens, less likely to be handy for non-macro purposes. One reason is that it's AF is rather slow, even when the Focus Limiter is used. I rarely use this lens on crop... it's too long. At high macro magnifications, it's going to largely be done on a tripod (well, above image wasn't, but camera and lens were sitting directly on the ground). Due to the shallow DOF this lens renders, it's more likely you'll need to stop it down quite a bit, requiring slower shutter speeds (or higher ISOs or flash, or some combination of these). The 60mm Macro is an EF-S lens, so won't work on your FF camera, only on your cropper. The same is true of the Tamron 60mm, which I'm trying out right now (it's an interesting lens because it's a full stop faster than nearly all other macro lenses... f2.0). Yes, the 50/2.5 Compact Macro only goes to 1:2 on it's own. Either with macro extension tubes or it's dedicated 1:1 adapter, it can be boosted. But it's still a fairly short focal length to try to use for general purpose macro.... it can put you too close to skittish subjects... or ones that sting or bite. Or with inanimate subjects, you might have problems casting shadows or bumping them with a lens hood. In my opinion, 90mm to 105mm is the most versatile "all around" macro focal length. That means in addition to the two Canon 100mm, there are also the Tamron 90mm (two versions, incl. a new one with stabilization and a new, faster AF drive), Tokina 100/2.8, and Sigma 105/2.8 OS. Personally I really like the Canon 100s because they can optionally be fitted with tripod rings, are internal focusing (don't grow longer when focused closer), and have all the goodies in one package. I consider 150mm and 180mm macro lenses to be largely "full frame"... a bit long and harder to use on crop. Alan Myers
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1605 guests, 142 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
