85mm 1.8

liza,

I know they have different purposes but how do you compare the 85 and the two 100's in your signature? I was considering the 100 macro as a macro/portrait lens...

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2111005
I've heard about numerous people getting bad copies, more then any other lens I've looked at actually. I've been warned by more then a few people about this lens.

I was one of them. I sent it off 3 times before it was perfict. But after the hassel they DID fix it and I loved it, untill the 17-55 with IS came along

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2112117
Is that a good magnification? I don't know all that much about macro.

A magnification of 0.44x (obtained using a 25mm extension tube) means that an object 51.5mm (~2 inches) will fill the frame lengthwise on a 1.6 crop camera.

A macro lens such as the 100mm f/2.8 macro with 1x magnification will fill the frame lengthwise with an object 22.7mm long, on a 1.6 crop body.

Regardless of the fact that the 85 f/1.8 is not a macro lens, it is one of the best lens deals that Canon makes - fast & accurate focus, very usable wide open, good bokeh, good colour & contrast and crisp images.

pturton wrote in post #2112859
A magnification of 0.44x (obtained using a 25mm extension tube) means that an object 51.5mm (~2 inches) will fill the frame lengthwise on a 1.6 crop camera.

A macro lens such as the 100mm f/2.8 macro with 1x magnification will fill the frame lengthwise with an object 22.7mm long, on a 1.6 crop body.

Regardless of the fact that the 85 f/1.8 is not a macro lens, it is one of the best lens deals that Canon makes - fast & accurate focus, very usable wide open, good bokeh, good colour & contrast and crisp images.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that up for me.

Macro question:

If you take a photo of a penny with a 1:1 magnification lens filling up a 24x36mm sensor completely, and you go to print it on a 24x36mm piece of paper, it (the photo) would be identical in size to the original penny, correct

Anyway, I think with some tubes my Sigma 70-300 APO Macro might turn into a really really nice macro lens.

JJ, I guess some people are more fussy then others and some people have had worsel uck then others.

ejwebb wrote in post #2112826
liza,

I know they have different purposes but how do you compare the 85 and the two 100's in your signature? I was considering the 100 macro as a macro/portrait lens...

I use the 85 and the 100 f/2 for sports shooting. They're virtually identical in performance and IQ. The 100mm macro is a true dedicated macro with 1:1 capability. It's much slower focusing than the other two lenses but is probably sharper. And zoom lenses that are labeled "macro" really aren't true macro lenses. They have close up capability but not 1:1 like a real macro lens with a fixed focal length.

liza wrote in post #2113349
I use the 85 and the 100 f/2 for sports shooting. They're virtually identical in performance and IQ. The 100mm macro is a true dedicated macro with 1:1 capability. It's much slower focusing than the other two lenses but is probably sharper. And zoom lenses that are labeled "macro" really aren't true macro lenses. They have close up capability but not 1:1 like a real macro lens with a fixed focal length.

What type of macro applications are there? The only thing I could think of that I shoot are flowers (only thing I could think of that could be shot macro.)

Take a gander at these VB shots w/85 1.8, great stuff: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=224939

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2113361
What type of macro applications are there? The only thing I could think of that I shoot are flowers (only thing I could think of that could be shot macro.)

Butterflies and other insects are commonly photographed as are non-living items such as coins, for instance. Peruse the macro forum here and at www.fredmiranda.com to see examples. Here's one I shot last summer with the 100mm:

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2112909
Macro question:

If you take a photo of a penny with a 1:1 magnification lens filling up a 24x36mm sensor completely, and you go to print it on a 24x36mm piece of paper, it (the photo) would be identical in size to the original penny, correct

Since American and Canadian pennies are only 20mm diameter, you cannot fill a 24x36mm sensor with a 1:1 macro lens without adding extension tubes or diopter lenses.

If you used a 1:1 macro lens to take a picture of a 20mm penny at 1:1 and printed an image the size of the sensor, the image of the penny in the print would be the same 20mm diameter.

pturton wrote in post #2114928
Since American and Canadian pennies are only 20mm diameter, you cannot fill a 24x36mm sensor with a 1:1 macro lens without adding extension tubes or diopter lenses.

If you used a 1:1 macro lens to take a picture of a 20mm penny at 1:1 and printed an image the size of the sensor, the image of the penny in the print would be the same 20mm diameter.

I understand .