dom

Some pics from the 55-250 IS.

Not too bad IMO. I was more worried about focusing than exposure so they're a tad dark.

jupitersolo

How's this working out, I'm about to get one? The 100mm macro is just not cutting it, I need more reach on my 5D.

moeronn

Don't you have a 70-200 2.8? Wouldn't be just as well or better off using that with some tubes?

jupitersolo

I do, I have used tubes on my 300mm as well as my 100mm macro, but still want a true 1:1.

jupitersolo

Well, my first non Canon lens is one the way, Sigma 180mm macro.

waTSX

^^That's supposed to be a good one. I wish I had your lens budget.

jupitersolo

Items are/will be sold so that I can get this. I talk myself out of Canon's 180mm because of the $$$$$.

waTSX

That makes me feel a little better. Look forward to the macros.

stogie1020

moeronn

Congrats. And after just spending a few minutes playing with extention tubes, I can see why a dedicated lens is worth while. The focus range gets all messed up. FWIW, I only tested the tubes with the 85 1.8, so far.

srika

so... ext tubes FTL? i was considering getting some..

moeronn

I wouldn't go that far just yet. I need to them it on other lenses and see how they work.

It was just with the 85, the focus range was about 1 foot - 6 feet (guesstimate - I didn't measure). I neet to try them on the 70-200 and 50 and maybe the 17-55. Also going to try them in combination with the 1.4 extender.

jupitersolo

No not FTL, I love to use them, but it cuts your FL down big time. I used my 12mm tube on my 16-35 and I had to be within inches of the subject to get the shot I wanted, and then it wasn't as good when I was looking PP, first time I tried.

I've used my 25mm on my 100mm macro and it let me get so much closer, the droplets set on my flickr page.

I just like the reach of 1:1 on the longer lens, it lets me get to areas that I normally wouldn't be allowed without damaging the subject.

srika

oh ok. that's good to know. so I guess ext tubes are OK and usable for certain subjects but not as much for others.

jupitersolo

UPS just dropped it off, here's some of the first shots. Just quick out on my deck. Just waiting for the sunflowers to pop open.

Billiam

I just saw your query about my Canon 180mm macro earlier today. If it's of any comfort I wouldn't have been able to provide much info beyond it being large and heavy. I'm 0-4 on weather the times I've planned on going out and shooting with it. For some reason I just haven't felt like bothering to take the 180 out around the neighborhood. I really want to do wildflowers or lichens or something similar with it.

wndrlst

I haven't noticed - does anyone here have Canon's 24-105 f/4L IS?

I've been contemplating an upgrade for my general walk-around, but everytime I think of selling my 17-85 for the 17-55, I cringe at the loss of reach. It occurs to me, that when I truly want to shoot wide, I tend to use my 10-22 because, let's face it, it's good at what it does. SO, losing the wide range in favor of a bit more reach on a lens that will outshoot my 17-85 in every way, AND has a constant aperture seems like as close to a win/win as I'm likely to find.

Thoughts? Experiences with this particular lens???

srika

funny I was just thinking about it last night, I want to get another 24-105. I miss the IS and the extra reach. And the light weight. It's a wonderful lens.

wndrlst

Sorry, Rubin, refresh my memory - what did you trade it for? And you've been using it on a FF camera, right?

Generally, though, you were pleased with the sharpness & color, etc?

moeronn

^^ I think I would get the 17-55 over the 24-105 unless you had a FF. The extra stop is nice.

But if going FF, then the choice is between the 24-105 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8.

wndrlst

Why, though? Just for the extra stop?

I'm not going full frame - sticking with my 40D for now. The extra stop IS nice, but I'm currently shooting with a variable aperture 4-5.6, so the constant 4 would still be an improvement. Did you read my post, though? I can't reconcile the loss of the range from 55-85. I shoot that end of the lens >>50% of the time, and still find myself debating whether to swap to my 70-200 fairly frequently. When I want to shoot wide I've got the 10-22. I'm not trying to be a brat, I'm genuinely curious about why you still recommend the 17-55?

srika

yeah the only reason I chimed in is because you said you had the 10-22 and wanted to use that for its purpose. It would not be the best single lens for cropped. I got the 24-70 2.8 and, its a nice piece of glass but for me, unecessary if I have the 50mm 1.4 - as crazy as that sounds. The only reason I wanted the 24-70 is for the 2.8. I should not have sold the 24-105, I should have bought a 50mm 1.4 (or 1.8).

Very pleased with the sharpness and color, I started to get really good with it towards the end of its stay with me but sadly I sold it.

ps. nice edit you know I woulda given you some trouble.

moeronn

For the extra stop and the ability to go fairly wide without changing lenses. If you're out shooting landscapes wide, then yes, you'll use the 10-22. But in the city, it's not going to work as well. I guess it really depends where you're shooting, though.

Keep in mind that I went from the 17-40 f4 t o the 17-55 2.8, so I got and extra stop, IS and more range. From your perspective, it's a different scenario.

srika

wndrlst do you change lenses a lot? I mean on your cam.

jupitersolo

Are you kidding?

jupitersolo

miss the edit..

I used it on the 40D when shooting the Cherry Blossoms and the rest of the Tidal Basin back in the spring, got some good shots. Was a nice length, I didn't change to longer lens because it was working. And the IS got me some good water shots handheld, they're in my flickr.

srika

the edit was nothing, she just spelled my name with an e instead of i... ;p

jupitersolo

stogie1020

^taken with the 24-70 or the 24-105?

wndrlst

Yeah, I caught myself pretty quickly. Whew!

wndrlst

Pssshhht! Like I can keep up with your stinkin lens line-up!!!

Wanna bring it to dinner Sunday?

wndrlst

Ok, yes, I can see how that would be a step up in every direction. I've already got the IS, and the aperture is an improvement, albeit a small one, and I DO wish it were a faster lens. Hmmm...I hardly ever shoot in the city.

Canon needs to make a lens for me, dammit.


Oooo, I know! I'll pull a Jupity & get both!!

wndrlst

I'm pretty good about changing if conditions are favorable. You know, not clinging to a rock or hiking in the rain. Also, it's nice to have a little reach if you spot a bit of wildlife & don't want to risk it disappearing on you while you change lenses.

Obviously, sometimes you just don't feel like packing 20 pounds worth of gear around, though. The 17-85 is by far the weakest glass I own, yet the one on my camera most frequently purely because of its range. Upgrading it has become a no-brainer, it's just a question of what to upgrade to. I have the feeling that if I upgrade to the 17-55, the 70-200 will spend the most time on my cam. That's just not a terribly practical walk-around. They need to make a better quality 17-85. Or fuggit, just make a 17-105 f/2.8L IS & call it a day.

srika

reason I asked is, if you don't mind changing lenses, you could do with the 10-22 / 24-105 combo better, imo.

right? It could even be 3.5 or 4

wndrlst

True. For example, I changed lenses 4 times on the most recent hike I've got up in my wanderlust thread. Started with the 17-85, switched to my macro, back to the 17-85, then to the 10-22.

And I suppose I'd settle for that

stogie1020

Don't you have a backup body Wndrlst? Have you done the two cameras at once thing with different lenses on them?

wndrlst

I do, but it's out on loan.

I've never tried it, but have contemplated it. I can certainly see myself doing that while wandering around a flat trail or the city. Having 20 pounds of gear on your back & protecting one camera/lens when scrambling up rocks is enough for me to worry about, & enough weight directly on my neck/shoulders without worrying about a second swinging around. I probably wouldn't bring an extra body along under those circumstances (which are honestly my favorite circumstances...).

It's definitely something I'd like to try for less active shooting sometime, though. Have you shot that way?

stogie1020

No (I wish!), I only have the 40D, but I have seen some backpacks with attachment points for a camera that holds the camera right at chest level, so the backup wouldn't swing around too much. I was actually looking for input myself on how it felt to have two cameras swinging around....

wndrlst

Hmm

jupitersolo

Most of the time I see people with the longer lens on a tri/monopod and the w/a strap around their neck or shoulder.