Lenses (I'm talking Canon but feel free to share)

[dont.care]

before you ask, the 1ds is an antiquated piece of shit that’s fixing to get replaced with a 1dx

[iliketag]

The guy I bought the 24-70 from offered one to me for around 500 so that may replace that sigma wide angle (I plan on selling it) but I might wait. Lol, how old is the 1Ds? I have never seen one that I can remember :p and that is a lot of bodies o.o I really want to get another full frame back up. I absolutely loved my T3i. I was very proud of myself when I paid for my own DSLR! I think it works fine as a back up, but it’s still not going to work out the same way if I have the Mk II fail mid shoot. I find moving between ff and aps-c mid shoot is really disorienting for me. I lend the body to a friend periodically so I can have a shooting buddy but when I use it to check settings I’m all “wtf? why am I so damn close?”

[dont.care]

1ds III is a mid 2007 camera

[dont.care]

I have a lot of bodies for the reason mentioned earlier.. I hate swapping lenses mid-shoot.. You have to figure the cost of losing a shot vs. making an investment.. Losing a shot can cost you way more if your client is a dick. 😀

[iliketag]

Does anyone have any experience with the Canon 180 f/3.5L ? If I’m not doing a ton of macro, is it better to get that one over the 100mm L?
I found a gently used 180 on craigslist for $775 but I’m unsure if it’s a good price for something heftier I may not use very often.

[nesgran]

both the 100L and 180L are stellar lenses. The “best” for macro is the 180 as you get a longer working distance, problem is however it is not hand holdable. If you’re happy to use a tripod and preferably a macro rail for focus stacking by all means, you will not be disappointed. If you have space it works really well for portraits as well. The 100L has the advantage of shorter focal length combined with IS making it reasonable to hand hold for macro work but you are much more likely to scare away small critters and having to sort out more light as standing closer you may well end up blocking natural light.

[IHF]

Yeah, if you aren’t planning to go full out into macro, the 100mm would be the best choice.  It’s more versital.  I’ve shot landscapes, macro and portraits (head shots to 3/4 its beautiful) with mine.  It barely comes off my camera.  The 180 is on my wish list because of that focal distance.  It’ll help me sneak up on camera shy creatures, but lighting will have to be stellar with a 3.5 and I’ll have to be more meticulous about it, and get some sort of macro  support system for capturing on the fly.  Honestly, I don’t see on the fly happening at all, as it’s much more dedicated. (Rubs hands together.  For me, it seems perfect!)

I can say, from a money stand point, from my experience you don’t necessarily have to go L with the 100mm2.8.  The only difference, other than slightly heavier build is IS.  But, IS doesn’t even seem to be needed.  I hand hold all the time (and I don’t have nerves of steal over here lol), unless I’m doing long exposures.  Most reviews actually will say it’s the only canon lens that doesn’t have a huge advantage to going with L.  I tested both, and completely agree.  Not much difference at all except the price tag.  May I suggest renting the lenses you are interested in and doing your own testing?  Borrow lenses.com!  It’s what I do each and every time before a purchase now.

[fstopper89]

My friend has a 100mm macro and LOVES it for portraits. I have never tried it myself but the camera store in the next town is pretty nice when I visit there as they let me try their lenses for sale on my camera, so I might try a few out sometime.

I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS (stabilization) and it seems pretty close to it’s Canon counterpart, though Canon’s has a much closer minimum focusing distance which is useful in some situations. But the Sigma is several hundred less in price. My next lens will probably be the 24-70 f/2.8. I have rented it before for a wedding but I don’t typically do weddings. But I do want a wide zoom.

[iliketag]

Thanks a heap for the input everyone! At the moment I have a Sigma 50mm 2.8 HSM DG macro lens. The little guy, in manual, has a true 1:1 macro. It’s a pretty great little lens for the price I paid (right around $250… I haggle like a madwoman on craigslist!) but you bring up a really good point with the whole blocking light thing. I find myself accidently blocking the light more than I’d like. The dilema I had with the 180 is that I rarely tote around a tripod (I know, I know. Lazy!) and I don’t really find myself shooting critters very often.

I bought a 100mm 2.8 USM for my mother two years ago for Christmas and I used it last March during a friends’ wedding to photograph her rings. I’ve noticed I tend to sway when I focus really hard. It’s not that my hands aren’t steady, but I will actually rock back and forth on my heels. This may be entirely due to the positioning of my body and lack of balance, but the addition of IS might help a little with that. I use BorrowLenses too, though so I’ve given some consideration to renting the 100mm L to get the feel for it and see if it makes the difference for me or not.

 

BEG, I picked up a Canon 70-200 2.8 at my store for around 600. It was a steal so even though it wasn’t IS, I jumped on it. I really love mine but I have heard praises for the Sigma. Is that the primary lens used on your flickr? I managed to befriend a guy on craigslist who was selling his 24-70 and I got that for a phenomenal price as well. I’ve been very, very lucky with my purchases, so I have gear that I am so thrilled with. If you’re ever in Colorado, I’d love to meet and shoot & share 🙂

[cameraclicker]

The 100 mm L lens has a great image stabilizer.  This is a cropped close up:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/54048679@N07/8677223945/, hand held.  For many macro shots a tripod is not needed.

 

[JCFindley]

The 100mm L is also weather and dust sealed where as the USM is not.

At half the price, I went with the USM myself, but I shoot almost everything via tripod, cable and mirror lockup so IS is useless for me.

[iliketag]

I’ve been poking around the last few days online, looking into a Canon 35mm lens. I have rented the f/1.4 in the past and loved it, but at this time it’s out of the budget. I have about $200 in reward certificates from a local store and was looking into the f/2 (without the USM, because if I’m spending $850, I might as well spend $1100 on a gently used f/1.4).

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? Is the focus distance as close as it’s L-series brother? For $100 I’m just curious if it’s a decent lens to get a feel for. Thanks! 🙂

[simoncookerussell]

Couldn’t live without my Canon L Series 100mm macro. So good, so versatile.

[iliketag]

I very much considered going for the 100mm L the other day, but I have a macro lens in the mean time. I don’t have a wide prime though, so I was wondering about the 35mm f/2 on the cheaper side 🙂

[dont.care]

I’ve got the 24mm f3.5L TS.E — I absolutely love it.

 

[Author]

Posts