| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2007 06:17:51 PM · #1 |
I think the next lens I purchase will be a macro lens. I'm trying to decide between these two lenses. Obviously the 100/2.8 is cheaper, but for the 3 days I had one I noticed two things:
1) The cheap construction. When you are used to L-glass, it feels terrible.
2) The AF can really hunt and peck.
Can anybody give me their hands-on opinion between the two lenses? The review of the 180mm on photozone said the AF was super slow.
One bonus of the 180mm would be using a 1.4 converter and then having a 250mm telephoto lens until I can buy a 70-200 2.8.
Working distance is a small plus. I would like to shoot bugs, but I'm not sure it's a huge difference. I mainly want reliable focus and a sharp lens. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 06:56:35 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) The AF can really hunt and peck. |
3 days is not very long to understand that lens. Read the manual? Using this lens for macro subjects on the fly (so-to-speak) requires a bit of luck, IMO, especially without a tripod. But if you have the time to plan the shot then the autofocus is easy enough to use. Manual is quite OK for me as well. Narrow DOF can be both irritating and charming. The bokeh is exceptional and the lens is very sharp.
I cannot comment on the other lens you mentioned. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 06:59:58 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) The AF can really hunt and peck. |
3 days is not very long to understand that lens. Read the manual? Using this lens for macro subjects on the fly (so-to-speak) requires a bit of luck, IMO, especially without a tripod. But if you have the time to plan the shot then the autofocus is easy enough to use. Manual is quite OK for me as well. Narrow DOF can be both irritating and charming. The bokeh is exceptional and the lens is very sharp.
I cannot comment on the other lens you mentioned. |
Haha, I don't need to read no stinking manual for a lens. Anyway, the hunt and peck was on a completely stationary object (see above). That's trouble in my book. If it doesn't even want to focus on a stationary object, how am I gonna get it on a bumblebee? |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 07:06:00 PM · #4 |
| I know what you mean, having used this lens very often for macro shots. One can have an object right in front of the lens but will have to resort to manual focus. Often, I find I am a bit too close to the object. Occasionally, I think it is the aperture I have selected and the lack of light. But over time I have learned to work with the lens and find it to be highly reliable and produces nice quality sharp shots. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 07:10:18 PM · #5 |
Autofocus is going to be problematic with any macro lens. The "throw" or range of focus is too long.
Up close a very small twist of the focus ring with throw the subject way out of focus, the autofocus systems like to tweak the focus with every movement of the camera.
With any marco lens I assume manual focus 50% of the time, more for real macro work.
For hand-held macro work, I generally get the framing the way I want then focus on the subect. As a shoot, I move the camera to maintain focus rather than move the focus ring or rely on the auto focus.
FWIW
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 07:55:59 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the next lens I purchase will be a macro lens. I'm trying to decide between these two lenses. Obviously the 100/2.8 is cheaper, but for the 3 days I had one I noticed two things:
1) The cheap construction. When you are used to L-glass, it feels terrible.
2) The AF can really hunt and peck.
Can anybody give me their hands-on opinion between the two lenses? The review of the 180mm on photozone said the AF was super slow.
One bonus of the 180mm would be using a 1.4 converter and then having a 250mm telephoto lens until I can buy a 70-200 2.8.
Working distance is a small plus. I would like to shoot bugs, but I'm not sure it's a huge difference. I mainly want reliable focus and a sharp lens. |
I have a couple L lenses and I don't find the 100 f/2.8 to feel cheap at all comparatively. I love this macro lens! Is is incredibly sharp and a great price. The only time it will hunt for AF is when you actually use it for macro....for other applications I have never had a problem with AF and it is quick and right on. With macro work, the AF does have trouble but you just need to help it determine the range you want it to focus on. I think that is the nature of the beast with macro work. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 08:00:58 PM · #7 |
| I'll ask again if anybody had direct comparison experience. I know people like the 100/2.8, but my question is what I gain with the $800 extra in the 180mm/3.5 |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 08:21:22 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll ask again if anybody had direct comparison experience. I know people like the 100/2.8, but my question is what I gain with the $800 extra in the 180mm/3.5 |
oh - I know, I know!!!
80mm
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 02:36:40 PM EST.
