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.
For the first test, I was using it handheld but for the last measurements I took, I mounted the 70-200 using the tripod ring and it was much easier (lens on tripod, not camera). Getting an estimate on my focusing distance really helped out and I will FOR SURE be using the tripod for macro shots when using the 70-200. I'll try testing out the 40/2.8 as well. That sounds like fun!
Anyways enough off trackness. One other hint. With the 70-200, you can actually use the zoom ring to focus. With extension tubes the focus range is so limited it's much easier to at least get your course focus this way. Then you can do fine adjustment with the focus ring.
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.
Why not get the 100mm 2.8 Non-L, which is already super sharp, and the 70-200 II. If you like the macro alot, you can sell it for the L version.
I looked this up in the Canon 70-200L f2.8 II manual and on page 13, it lists these values for the Canon 12mm II and 25mm II extension tubes maximal magnifications:
12mm tube: @70mm=.23X @200mm=.28X
25mm tube: @70mm=.42X @200mm=.36X
It also gives the MFD and FFD which I didn't include.
Yes! I'm a mastering engineer =) I also teach voice and music production privately so I get to work with lots of musicians. I decided to start helping out my "kids" with their youtube videos so I got into video and DSLRs. I didn't realize I'd get this deep into it. It's a useful skill to have in our field AND it's so much fun!!!! My camera gives me a break from "work". Since music became my profession 12 years ago, I haven't had a "hobby" to turn to. Glad to meet someone who I can appreciate both arts with
Ah, you are a "Pro"... I was a hobbyist for about 20-25 years. Designed my own speakers and power amps... hobby got too noisy for the WAF... Photography is quiter and gets the WAF favorable too .
Got my Kenko Extension tubes today. After some mild testing, I like how they work (and feel/weigh) on the 24-105 more so than the 70-200. It's just too damn heavy! I'll try it with a tripod too but DAMN!.... I think for now, this combo (24-105+Kenko tubes) will tide me over. When I do get the 100mm Macro L, I'll want to buy one of the macro flashes with it as well. Any recommendations?@AudioGlenn, I haven't had a chance to put it up yet but I did comparisons between all the lenses I own and a few I'd rented for a wedding a few weeks back. Of them, the 24-105 was the weakest performer. The 70-200 on the other hand was pretty nice. Are you mounting the 70-200 directly to your tripod or are you mounting your camera to the tripod? Macro is definitely one case where using the included tripod mount for the 70-200 is very helpful. Also, of the lenses I tested the 40 2.8 was actually the top performer in my opinion (with the 70-200 50 1.8 and sigma 85 1.4 not far behind)
Got both and they are equally awesome for their respective use. Now, for your question, I just tried - as we speak - to put my 65mm of extension tubes on my 70-200II just to see what. No shot taken. So, the min focusing distance becomes about 2' and the IS looks like working just fine. With that stacking of tubes, your magnification at 200mm should become 0.21 + 65/200 = 0.535
This means that objects taken with this stack will appear about half their size in the picture. This is not really macro, but it could be a good start. Extension tubes are quite cheap stuff. No need Canon for that, others can do as good. After all, these are just full of air. So, if your are not yet fully dipped into macro (the day you start, you can't get away anymore), I would consider the 70-200II and add a few tubes to it. You have the best walkabout lens money can buy and 0.535x mag for mid-macro.
Just a word more. The 100L lens is just an tremendous macro lens. I can tell you that the IS still works, though not in full, at close distance. I also stack tubes on it for like 1.5 - 1.6x and the results always blow my socks off. When you are out there shooting through wet foliage of bushes, you're happy to count on weather sealing.
All I can say about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is WOW! I got it in the mail yesterday. I wasn't expecting it to be that fast. I feel like I have a whole new AF system in my "old" 60D. As far as magnification/macro, I haven't received my kenko tubes yet but I just wanted to update this thread with my progress. OMG, this seriously is the lens of all lenses (at least in my bag). I absolutely love it. I really wasn't expecting this much more sharpness either. If the 24-70 II is supposed to be this sharp, my 24-105 is about about to be replaced as well.
Hey Glenn... are you like me, an audio nut turned photo nut?
You have a good selection of lenses - how about upgrading the 70-200 f4 to the 70-200 f2.8 IS II?
Keep the 35L for low light etc and sometime in the future upgrade 24-105 f4 for the new 24-70 f2.8 II - sweet combo IMHO.