Messages

31

Lenses / Re: Canon MP-E 65 Add on's & Tips

« on: January 05, 2011, 01:34:18 PM »

I'm also planning on getting the MP-E 65 and the MT-24 EX.

For those of you that have used the Macroshot Dual Mount Bracket. Can you add more ball sockets to make each arm longer? I would like to make each one about 20"+ so I can use it on my 180mm f/3.5L macro lens, so the light source is coming from the sides.

32

Software & Accessories / Please help me choose a macro flash

« on: December 18, 2010, 01:02:20 PM »

I have a Canon 180mm f/3.5 macro and I am looking to get a flash for it, mainly to increase the DOF. I also plan to get the MP-E 65mm sometime in the future.

How does the Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Ringlite Flash work with the 180mm macro? any other suggestions?

thanks

33

Lenses / Re: please help me choose

« on: December 15, 2010, 08:45:11 PM »

One thing to consider is if you plan on using a teleconverter with it, then you may want to go with the f/2.8.

You'll have a 98 - 280mm f/4 with a 1.4 TC and a 140 - 400 f/5.6 with a 2.0 TC.

34

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 verse EF 16-35 f/2.8L II optical quality

« on: December 15, 2010, 06:00:29 PM »

[/quote]

In mjardeen's defense, the OP contradicts itself.  He does put out the suggestion of the 16-35, but also says he want's something wider than his 15-85.
[/quote]

I was only interested in the 16-35 to use on a FF camera. If the IQ was significantly better than the 10-22 I would wait, and in time, eventually get a FF camera and the 16-35mm.

So far I love the 15-85mm. I also looked at the 17-55 because of the reputation. The build of the 15-85 is great, probably as good as a plastic L series lens, though there are very few plastic L lenses.

35

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 verse EF 16-35 f/2.8L II optical quality

« on: December 14, 2010, 05:49:52 PM »

Thanks for all of the comments. I think I'm going to get the 10-22 just after the holidays.

Additionally, all of my round filters will fit this lens as I bought them larger, in case I ever got this lens. I just use an adapter ring when they are being used on my 15-85mm.

36

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 verse EF 16-35 f/2.8L II optical quality

« on: December 12, 2010, 03:54:02 PM »

Thanks. Yeah, if the quality of the 10-22 wasn't close to the 16-35, I wouldn't get either of them, until I got a FF camera then I would pick up the 16-35 f/2.8.

I heard the 10-22 has distortion at 10 to 12mm, so I'm not sure if it's worth spending all of that money for an extra 3mm wider, since I already have a EF-S 15-85mm which I'm happy with.

37

Lenses / EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 verse EF 16-35 f/2.8L II optical quality

« on: December 12, 2010, 01:41:53 PM »

I have a canon 50D and I am considering the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. How is the optical quality of this lens verse the 16-35 f/2.8? Is it somewhat comparable? I have the EF-S 15-85 and I'm happy with the build and quality of it but I need a wider lens for landscape photos at times.

I plan to upgrade to a 7D in a year, if canon comes out with a 7D Mark II.

I just don't want to get stuck with a bunch of EF-S lenses if I ever upgrade to a FF in a 2 years or so.

38

Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f4 L

« on: December 12, 2010, 11:14:52 AM »

I'll look into the 300 2.8 and the 400 DO. My main concern with the size of the 400 f/2.8 is traveling with it. How can I get that, along with several other lenses and a body into a carry on bag? I wonder how the other guys get it on a plane or maybe they don't bring many other lenses.

39

Lenses / EF 400mm f4 L

« on: December 10, 2010, 08:49:36 PM »

Does anyone think Canon will ever make a EF 400mm f4 L with or without IS? They have a 300mm f2.8 and 300mm f4. I would love to have a 400mm f4; easier to travel with, smaller and probably a decent amount cheaper than the 400mm 2.8. You can add a 1.4 TC and have a 560mm f 5.6.

 I have the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS, but at times I can really use a longer lens.

I read the other thread about a EF-S 400mm f4 and don't think they'll make it for the reasons stated in that thread, especially lack of compatibility with a T.C.