man what a cheap build build for an L lens! worse than the 35 1.4. the 100L must be the plastic fantastic of L lenses. no wonder it costs "only" $1000 
!
ed rader
edrader "I am not the final word"  More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:08 | #1 man what a cheap build build for an L lens! worse than the 35 1.4. the 100L must be the plastic fantastic of L lenses. no wonder it costs "only" $1000 http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jwcdds Cream of the Crop  More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:11 | #2 It looks solid on paper. Julian
LOG IN TO REPLY |
oaktree Goldmember 1,835 posts Joined Mar 2007 More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:12 | #3 ed rader wrote in post #8808018  man what a cheap build build for an L lens! worse than the 35 1.4. the 100L must be the plastic fantastic of L lenses. no wonder it costs "only" $1000 !ed rader Looks likes you've given it a name. I bet it sticks Too much stuff, not enough shooting time.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:16 | #4 |
oaktree Goldmember 1,835 posts Joined Mar 2007 More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:21 | #5 timnosenzo wrote in post #8808076 No different than the 70-200 f/4L IS. ??? I could kill a Noik with my 70-200/4L IS. Too much stuff, not enough shooting time.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:23 | #6 oaktree wrote in post #8808107 ??? I could kill a Noik with my 70-200/4L IS. I don't know what that means, but it's still made out of plastic. connecticut wedding photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Oct 12, 2009 15:25 | #7 timnosenzo wrote in post #8808076 No different than the 70-200 f/4L IS. huge difference, imo. the use of plastic in the 70-200L f4 IS was judicious. i really couldn't tell any difference from the non IS until others pointed it out. http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
plasticmotif Goldmember  3,174 posts Likes: 2 Joined Sep 2008 Location: Tennessee More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:25 | #8 I like plastic. Mac P.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CosmoKid Goldmember  4,235 posts Likes: 14 Joined May 2009 Location: NJ More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:27 | #9 timnosenzo wrote in post #8808076 No different than the 70-200 f/4L IS.
Joe- 2 bodies, L 2.8 zoom trilogy and a couple of primes
LOG IN TO REPLY |
clowntreefrog Hatchling 7 posts Joined Nov 2007 More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:28 | #10 PLastic can be way more resistant than metal and it has more flexibility (wont bent like metal)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bomzai Senior Member 524 posts Joined Apr 2008 Location: Bothell WA, US More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:29 | #11 ed rader wrote in post #8808131 don't get me wrong, i don't have anything against plastic, a space age material, but the the macro just has a very cheap feel to it....or at least that's the first thing i noticed about the lens. Same here. Yet it definitely has better build than regular 100 macro. Camera: EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 70D, ™24-70mm f2.8 VC, EF 70-200mm IS f2.8 L II, EF 100mm IS f2.8 L Macro, EF-S 18-135 STM, Σ 12-24 II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:31 | #12 FWIW, I own both the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 100L Macro, as well some other fine plastic L's. connecticut wedding photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Oct 12, 2009 15:31 | #13 clowntreefrog wrote in post #8808158 PLastic can be way more resistant than metal and it has more flexibility (wont bent like metal) the L macro has that "cheap" plastic feels to it. i just doesn't impress me as a very durable lens. http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bomzai Senior Member 524 posts Joined Apr 2008 Location: Bothell WA, US More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:31 | #14 timnosenzo wrote in post #8808076 No different than the 70-200 f/4L IS. No similarities is more like it. Camera: EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 70D, ™24-70mm f2.8 VC, EF 70-200mm IS f2.8 L II, EF 100mm IS f2.8 L Macro, EF-S 18-135 STM, Σ 12-24 II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Oct 12, 2009 15:34 | #15 bomzai wrote in post #8808177 70-200 F/4L is very solid, Compared to what? Certainly not compared to the 70-200 f/2.8L. connecticut wedding photographer
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 1523 guests, 132 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
Too bad you had to go and touch it and realize it's just a plastic canister.
