I received my 40mm pancake today, and found it to be close focusing and very good for closeups of flowers. Its cheap too. i just snapped a few shots right out of the box, I will AFMA it and take some more in a few days.
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.
Let me rephrase the original question: "Help me decide between buying the 2013 Porsche Carrera S and the Honda Hybrid Self-Driving Hovercar." Given Canon's recent track record of lens delays, we may actually see that hovercar before the 200-400mm lens.
I have bought a D30 just for web pictures as I like to keep up with technology
LOL Me too! Ebay'ed for 80$.
That was about the cost to me!
Just dying to stick the 200 f/2 on it
I looked through the topics, however I wasn't able to find the same topic within 5 minutes, so I decided to just go for it and ask you guys.
My equipment is a 16-35mm, a 50mm and a 70-200mm.
Now however, I'm in need of a macro lens and I can't quite decide which one to pick: whether I should get myself the 100mm f/2.8 Macro with IS or pick up the 180mm f/3.5L.
Since I use a FF camera and am waiting for the 1D X, I thought probably those extra 80mm would be a nice thing for me. However I heard AF is pretty slow. Is it really that bad? I hope it's not like my old Sigma 70-300 which I've sold?! That one was ridiculously slow. All in all that was really what made me not buy the lens yet - it's still a lot of money.
The 100mm has plus regarding IS, f/2.8 and I could also use it as a portrait lens - with the 50mm I need to go too close to the subject for most shots IMO. If I'd get the 180mm I'd probably need the 85mm as well.
Any ideas what to pick?
Is the rate limiter the lens itself for focus?
I'm just wondering if putting this lens on a 5D Mark III or 1DX would give a quicker focus than other cameras?
I have the Sigma 600mm f8.
Needs a heavy steady tripod (video type is more stable, level head with bowl, adjust camera level via tripod ring) good light (it has poor contrast at best, as light starts to fade the naturally low contrast just washes out images taken with the mirror lens, easily fixed with a bit of gamma correction)
I get best results with stills when I pre-focus and wait for the action. Magic Lanterns focus trap feature may be useful for those considering a mirror lens. Use a cable release and MLU or live view mode.
Focus, let the wobles settle, check and reset focus.
You can get a sharp shot with a mirror lens, it just isn't all that easy.
It also makes a brilliant video lens (in good light) but again, requires proper supporting.
They are a good way to get extreme reach (600mm x1.6) but can be very frustrating to use.
If it's a once in a lifetime shot, and / or you don't like MF, then look elsewhere.
I sell cameras and lenses all the time on ebay, I get enough more of a price to pay their fee. $3500 for 250K camera seems a little high, I just bought one for $3600 and it had 1400 actuations, another person had one for $3700 with under 500 actuations.
I see some high usage cameras on Fred Miranda that are not selling for $3250. Ebay charged me $65 for selling a 1700 lens a couple of weeks ago, thats 3.8 % not 9%.
How do you know your $3600 camera had 1400 actuactions? Nobody knows except for Canon... If I were a bad person I can sell mine on ebay and claim it has 50K actuations... Nobody will ever know. That's why I don't buy used. Unless there is an authentic Canon Service report with the REAL number of actuations, people will either lie or, like me, not be sure of how many photos I've done... I assume around 250K averaging my daily usage...