| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2003 11:44:33 PM · #26 |
Actually the 70-200 mm F4 L is a L lens :) just only about $550, or about 1/2 the price of the F2.8 version or 1/3 of the price of the F2.8 IS version...
Originally posted by lionelm:
[quote=paganini]Try the 70-200mm F4 L lens too. Really nice lens for the money. F4 is a bit high but with the low noise in the 10D, you can simply crank it up to 800 ISO and it'll work just fine. In outdoor daylight shots, it works really well. The focus is incredibly fast.
Yes I read wonderfull things about this on the f4 70-200 ... like L lens quality in a non L lens ! That was my original choice .. but then I read good about the 75-300 and the IS is probably usefull there. Well .. that 2 good choices in that area !!!!
Plus at f4 you can use a 1.4x converter which you cannot do the the 75-300 (autofocus would not work probably). Well you can always do manual. |
|
|
|
|
05/26/2003 02:49:57 AM · #27 |
ere are a few lenses that I think are a great bang for the buck. I have used all of these and have found them to be good performers. Not just in terms of sharpness, but for the whole lens use experience.
EF 24mm f/2.8 ($275) ~38mm on a 10D
Very sharp, and a nice focal length for the 10D. Wide enough for a lot of situations and a fast maximum aperture. Great for indoor use. Decent quality construction, but not up to an L lens.
EF 35mm f/2 ($215) ~56mm on a 10D
VERY sharp lens, even decent wide open. Close to a normal lens when used on a 10D. If I had to go with only one prime to start out with, this would be it. Similar construction to the 24mm f/2.8
EF 50mm f/1.8 II ($65) ~80mm on a 10D
Very sharp when stopped down to f/4, and decent optical performance wide open. Fast maximum aperture and a great effective focal length for portraits. Construction quality is pretty much bottom of the barrel but optical quality and price more than make up for it.
EF 100mm f/2 USM ($365) ~160mm on a 10D
Very sharp lens. Excellent results at f/2. Wonderful lens for portraits. Fast AF and lovely bokeh. Almost shows too much detail for portraiture. Good quality construction and full time manual focusing.
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM ($1130) ~480mm on a 10D
Great lens all around. VERY sharp, even wide open, very fast AF, IS is a must have. Relatively small and light. Perfect lens for wildlife photography. Small and light compared to the other lenses in this size and focal length range. For wildlife the only lens that rivals this lens in value is the 100-400. The 300mm has superior image optical quality, but when a 1.4x tele-converter is added the optical quality drops below that of the 100-400mm.
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ($385) ~45-216mm on a 10D
If I only could have one lens to use this one would probably be it. The aperture is a but on the slow side, but 99% of the time the IS makes up for it. Great performer, especially when stopped down, sturdy construction but not up to that of the L lenses. highly recommended.
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ($540) ~112-320mm on a 10D
L lens in every sense of the word. A tad soft wide open but amazingly sharp when stopped down to f/8 and beyond. Very fast AF, top notch build quality, comes with the hood and soft case. You really can’t go wrong with this one at all.
EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III ($150) ~120-480mm on a 10D
Absolutely great value for the money. A lot of people love to hate this lens but I have used it and it does indeed give wonderful results from my experience. I wouldn’t bother with the USM version, the AF is no faster. The IS version should be nice but I didn’t find the optical quality on the IS version to be as good as the plain ole 75-300.
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ($1300) ~160-640mm on a 10D
This lens is wonderful. Lots of people love to hate this lens, but I have found it to be a spectacular performer. Very tough lens to beat for wildlife photography.
Greg
|
|
|
|
05/26/2003 02:21:50 PM · #28 |
I own a Canon EOS film camera and the only lens I have is the 28-135 IS USM lense. I agree with dadas115 with his assessment of that lense. I rarely feel the need for more zoom. With a 10D body it would be even better due to the 1.6x factor.
My next lense I would like is the 100-400 IS USM but am not willing to fork out the $$$ yet.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2003 01:48:16 PM · #29 |
Ya left out the 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro.. Outstanding lens and one of the sharpest you'll ever see!
|
|
|
|
05/28/2003 02:05:11 PM · #30 |
The 100mm macro is sort of a specialty lens and it is my least favorite of the four macro lenses that Canon currently offers. I know it can be used for portraitsâ€Â¦ but I really prefer the 100mm f/2 to the 100mm macro for this use. The 100mm macro doesn’t have the working distance of the 180mm or the compactness of the 50 or the extreme magnification of the MP-E so I hardly ever take it with me anywhere.
Just my thoughts on the matter :). I think everyone else loves the 100mm macro.
Greg
|
|
|
|
05/28/2003 03:48:44 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
The 100mm macro is sort of a specialty lens and it is my least favorite of the four macro lenses that Canon currently offers. I know it can be used for portraitsâ€Â¦ but I really prefer the 100mm f/2 to the 100mm macro for this use. The 100mm macro doesn’t have the working distance of the 180mm or the compactness of the 50 or the extreme magnification of the MP-E so I hardly ever take it with me anywhere.
Just my thoughts on the matter :). I think everyone else loves the 100mm macro.
Greg |
I guess I'm not really understanding the advantage of the 100mm f2 over the 100mm f2.8 macro. While being a macro lens, it also functions perfectly well as a portrait lens e.g., this test shot with a 100mm macro lens
I'm not quite getting why you side-line it as a "speciality" lens - sure it'll focus close, but that doesn't preclude it from being used as a non-macro lens too.
Message edited by author 2003-05-28 15:50:31. |
|
|
|
05/28/2003 04:27:57 PM · #32 |
Well, I like the bokeh better from the f/2, hence I find it to be a better portrait lens. It is a specialty lens because it is optimized for use with small apertures at magnifications close to 1:1. The AF is not as quick as the 100mm f/2 either. I also believe the 100mm f/2 to be sharper than the macro lens when the subject not a macro type subject (for example a portrait of a person who is sitting several feet away). Saying that the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM isn’t a specialty lens is like saying the 24mm f/1.4L USM isn’t a specialty lens. I don’t see any sense in dropping $1100 for the f/1.4 if you can do all you need to with the 24mm f/2.8. If I am going to do portrait work and wanted a 100mm lens then the 100mm f/2 USM is the one I reach for. If I want a 100mm to do macro work with then the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM is the lens I reach for. I find the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM to be the most overrated lens in the EF lens lineup. That is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it. There are plenty of people around who thing the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM is the greatest lens ever made and that is an opinion they are entitled to. Check out the reviews on the 100mm f/2 if you like. I am definitely not in the minority when I say that I prefer it over the macro for portrait use. I always kind of blew off the 100mm f/2 until I actually got the chance to use one. I was very surprised at how well it performs. I have found my copy to be slightly sharper than my 85mm f/1.8 USM and on par with the 50mm f/1.4 USM. I have found that the 100mm macro isn’t quite as sharp as any of these lenses when focused at infinity. My belief is that if you want a macro lens the 100mm macro is a good choice, if you want more of a general use lens in this focal length range there are plenty of better choices (85mm f/1.8 USM, 100mm f/2 USM, 135mm f/2L USM).
By the way, that was a nice shot you have there, it still doesn’t mean that this is the best lens for the job. I have gotten some great results when using the 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III with tubes as a macro lens. Just because I got good results doesn’t mean that this is the best lens for the job.
Greg
|
|
|
|
05/28/2003 05:10:40 PM · #33 |
I'm just asking because I don't quite see the point of spending another $400 or so to get a pretty much similar lens that's why I was asking what was the point of having both.
I agree the AF could be faster on the 100mm macro, but like you said, the 100mm f2 is 'almost too sharp' for a portrait lens, so I guess I still don't quite see the point of spending double the money for two similar lenses.
Never said you weren't entitled to your opinion - was just asking....
as for the portrait shot, I'd really rather have used something in the 200mm range but the 100mm was all I had with me that day
Message edited by author 2003-05-28 17:12:07. |
|
|
|
05/28/2003 05:34:48 PM · #34 |
I never recommended buying both. I only stated that I consider the 100mm macro to be a specialty lens to buy if you have specific needs for it. I don’t know what $400 you are talking about either, I got mine for $300 new. Besides, I don’t see a lot of point in buying primes unless you have some particular need for that focal length. Zooms generally give more bang for the buck. So if you were looking to do some serious portrait work, I don’t think it would be wise to buy the 100mm macro for that purpose just as if you were looking to do macro work I wouldn’t think you would go for the 100mm f/2. I even think the 70-200 is a better lens for portraiture than the 100mm macro.
Greg |
|
|
|
05/28/2003 05:55:37 PM · #35 |
The current BHphoto prices are $379 for the 100mm f2 and $469 for the 100mm f2.8, you can get them for less for the grey imports obviously, but it still works out approx $400 or more per lens.
I must have mistakenly got the impression from what you'd said that you owned both. I just was just trying to understand what the compelling advantage was to spend the extra $400.
The 70-200 f4L is a nice portrait lens no doubt about it.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2003 06:49:01 PM · #36 |
I DO own both, but I am not recommending that anyone else run out and buy both. I bought my 100mm f/2 about 3 weeks ago for $289 plus shipping ~$8 from B&H. It is a refurb, and I have been thrilled with it so far. I have never been impressed with the EF 100mm macro, in fact mine has been on loan to someone for the past 2 months. I am in no rush to get it back. If I was going to buy a macro lens and my money was tight I would go with the Sigma 180mm EX for a little more than the EF 100 f/2.8 macro USM.
Greg
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:23:35 PM EDT.
