Official Lens Discussion Thread
#562
Originally Posted by Billiam
Well I succumbed to temptation and ordered the 180mm f/3.5L macro this morning.
![](http://www.borrowlenses.com/images/special/canon-180mm-f3.5-macro_medium.jpg)
![](http://www.borrowlenses.com/images/special/canon-180mm-f3.5-macro_medium.jpg)
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.
#563
is learning to moonwalk i
Originally Posted by 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.
#564
I do, I have used tubes on my 300mm as well as my 100mm macro, but still want a true 1:1.
#565
Well, my first non Canon lens is one the way, Sigma 180mm macro.
#567
Items are/will be sold so that I can get this. I talk myself out of Canon's 180mm because of the $$$$$.
#569
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Originally Posted by jupitersolo
Well, my first non Canon lens is one the way, Sigma 180mm macro.
![Woot](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/woot.gif)
![Cheers](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif)
#570
is learning to moonwalk i
Originally Posted by jupitersolo
Well, my first non Canon lens is one the way, Sigma 180mm macro.
#571
Senior Moderator
so... ext tubes FTL? i was considering getting some..
#572
is learning to moonwalk i
Originally Posted by srika
so... ext tubes FTL? i was considering getting some..
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.
#573
Originally Posted by srika
so... ext tubes FTL? i was considering getting some..
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.
#574
Senior Moderator
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.
#575
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.
![](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/logrdawg/IMG_1849-1.jpg)
![](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/logrdawg/IMG_1849-1.jpg)
![](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/logrdawg/IMG_1851-1.jpg)
#576
Big Block go VROOOM!
Originally Posted by 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.
#577
Earth-bound misfit
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???
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???
#578
Senior Moderator
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.
#579
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by 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.
Generally, though, you were pleased with the sharpness & color, etc?
#580
is learning to moonwalk i
^^ 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.
But if going FF, then the choice is between the 24-105 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8.
#581
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by 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.
But if going FF, then the choice is between the 24-105 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8.
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.
![Shrug](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
#582
Senior Moderator
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.![Frown](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif)
ps. nice edit
you know I woulda given you some trouble.
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.
![Frown](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif)
ps. nice edit
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Jesus LOL](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/jesuslol.gif)
#583
is learning to moonwalk i
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
![Shrug](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
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.
#584
Senior Moderator
wndrlst do you change lenses a lot? I mean on your cam.
#585
Originally Posted by 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???
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???
Are you kidding?
#586
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.
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.
#587
Senior Moderator
the edit was nothing, she just spelled my name with an e instead of i... ;p
#588
![](https://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YevWBi_6cvTr4M:http://seriouslygood.kdweeks.com/images/reuben.gif)
![](https://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4591/reubenyx4.jpg)
#589
Needs more Lemon Pledge
^taken with the 24-70 or the 24-105?
#590
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by srika
ps. nice edit
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Jesus LOL](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/jesuslol.gif)
![Tongue](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
![Teef](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/teef.gif)
#591
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by jupitersolo
Are you kidding?
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Wish](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wish.gif)
#592
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
![Ponder](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/ponder.gif)
Canon needs to make a lens for me, dammit.
![Tomato](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/tomato.gif)
![Tomato](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/tomato.gif)
![Genius](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/genius.gif)
#593
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by srika
wndrlst do you change lenses a lot? I mean on your cam.
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.
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#594
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by 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.
Or fuggit, just make a 17-105 f/2.8L IS & call it a day.
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#595
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by 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![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
right? It could even be 3.5 or 4
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Shrug](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
And I suppose I'd settle for that
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#596
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Don't you have a backup body Wndrlst? Have you done the two cameras at once thing with different lenses on them?
#597
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by stogie1020
Don't you have a backup body Wndrlst? Have you done the two cameras at once thing with different lenses on them?
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?
#598
Needs more Lemon Pledge
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....
#599
Earth-bound misfit
Originally Posted by 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....
![Ponder](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/ponder.gif)
#600
Originally Posted by 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....
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.