Tiny Water macro.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I am trying to decide on which lens to get next. I want to play with Macro but I like the versatility of the 70-200.
My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.? Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out.
I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. From what I've read, images are very sharp through this lens. They both have IS, they are both f/2.8 apertures. I can use the 70-200 for portraits...i guess I can use the 100mm for portrait work as well. But it seems the macro lens is a specialty lens. Eventually, I'd like to own both but would the 70-200mm get me by on macro work at all? (I hope this is not a stupid question!)
Yes, I've heard about the 180mm f/3.5L and I would be open to considering this lens. I have a 24-105 so I'm also concerned about adding some variety to the focal lengths I already own. I've got the wide end covered but am seriously lacking on the telephoto side. It seems the 100mm macro would only be used for macro.
Any insight from experienced users would be great. BTW, I'm shooting on a 60D. I will eventually purchase a 5D mkiii and keep the 60D as a 2nd body.
Happy shooting to you all =). I look forward to reading your replies.
Here's the deal okay...
I shoot weddings, senior portraits and street style photography. I have a 5D MKii and enjoy it thoroughly. I found a ridiculously amazing deal on a Canon 1vHS & love it. Using this EOS-1 Series body has spoiled me, and having more than 9 AF points is lovely. I HATE GRABBING MY 5D MKii...
I've got all the "Wedding Glass" with the exception of maybe the 135mm/f2 or 85mm/f1.2.... But that's not the problem...
I have recently become obsessed with film. However...
Pictures look sexy.
Film is expensive.
I've run across a wedding photography who shoots medium format (film) and his pictures are breathtaking... They are insane. But ITS FILM, and medium format at that! $$$$
So, I'm at this weird crossroads where everything is hitting me all at one time. I've got great gear, more than enough to make anyone happy. I've worked hard for my gear. And I think I'm just ready for a fresh start. I am familiar with Leica's and comfortable with manually focusing. I use to use Nikon equipment so I'm familiar with it. I've never shot medium format. I love the look of the Canon 1.2 primes...
It's truly a mid-camera crisis. Again, I'm not afraid of fresh starts. I'm just looking for some advice from the peeps here before I get in over my head.
It's always been my understanding that the 50mm f/1.4 actually outperforms the f/1.2 at practically every aperture... which is why I can't understand why someone would upgrade when it is technically a downgrade. So my vote would be the 35L.
Maybe that is just rumor and innuendo, but it's a tale I choose to believe.
It doesn't matter what camera you have. I have taken and produced much better work from my Elan 7 and my darkroom skills than I ever have with my 7D and L lenses.
Then take your Elan 7 out and shoot 1/2000s, ISO 25,600, f/2.8 on a 300 f/2.8L, get a rapid fire shot of an interception and print out 8 x 10's. The camera will suddenly and mysteriously matter. By the way, there is a camera today that will do that easily. A CAMERA.