EF 16-35 F4 and Sigma 150mm 2.8 macro

+1 for the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 SP. Really good lens, for some reason on this particular Tamron model even the outer AF points work reliably on a dslr.
Couldn’t bring myself to change this for the Canon EF 85/1.4 L.

The EF 24-70mm f2.8 did not have IS.

David - Sydney said:

I asked the forum for some examples since I don't shoot those genres... thanks for providing some but perhaps the commentary wasn't necessary. My only lens faster than f2.8 is for astro.
I am happy to seek information if I don't know it.

Click to expand...

I wasn't sure if you were serious or just teasing, because it seems like there are so many things you can photograph with a 100 or 135mm lens, even with an aperture wider than f2.0

But if you are serious:
I really do shoot with wide apertures a lot.
One pretty common scenario is that a company hires me to take some shots for their website. I take some portraits of employees infront of a backdrop, some shots of their products on a backdrop, some shots of their HQ - all with narrow apertures, and loads of depth of field ... And then I put on some primes (40mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 or 135mm 1.8) and I take some shots thatbare more hmm "symbolic", "abstract", "lifestyle" shots... I don't know the right term (english is not my native language). Anyway shots where you get the sense of what is in the background, but focus only some details: hand holding pipette with blurred lab equipement in the background, someone working on a computer with coworkers blurred etc. And in anlot of cases it is better to stand back further and use a lens with narrower field of view, to get the right framing and avoid some distractive elements, that I would get in my frame with a wider lens.

The other thing I do fairly common is shooting clothes. And we usually take some studio shots where everything needs to be sharp and perfectly lit. And then a day or two later we go out and shoot on location - and a lot of times I use 135mm 1.8 to blur the distractive elements in the background, or just because I'm taking advantage of the evening light and city lights, and prefer to keep the ISO down, and loose some DOF.
If I'm shooting a model standing on a boardwalk next to the sea, I can usually step a bit further away - put a 85 or 135mm lens on. Frame the shot so that I leave plenty of space empty next to the model (in case they make a wide print, and put some info next to the model) and shoot wide open. The model is gonna be sharp enough so that they can make a tighter crop if they need to, and the sea in the background is gonna be blurry and provide some unobtrusive background for text if needed.
If you take a shot like that with a 100mm f1.4 from the distance of 10m and client later crops the shot so that they only have the model in a frame that is gonna look similar to a 200mm f5.6. and if they crop it even tighter (just the torso) that will look similar to hmm 350mm f16? Or something similar. Which means that the dof on the face won't be that shallow.

I love my EF 28mm for the simple reason that is mentioned in the article: no RF equivalent and no commercial prospects to build one.
70-200 f4 IS is also great, small and inexpensive. For those that want a tele lens I'd say it's hard to beat.

David - Sydney said:

What would be the use cases for 100/1.4 @f1.4 vs say a f2.8 like the current RF100 macro?

For portraiture, wouldn't keeping both eyes in focus be a problem @f1.4?
Planetary images perhaps?
For telephoto/wildlife, wouldn't you be too close?
Others?

Click to expand...

"For portraiture, wouldn't keeping both eyes in focus be a problem @f1.4?"

No. Not at f/1.2, either. One eye out of focus is a photographer problem, not an aperture problem. Portraits ain't just close up head shots. Below = f/1.2 @85mm.

I really enjoy using the EF100mm f/2. It might not have top-notch image quality, but it performs well and is small and light. I also can't part with the EF70-200 f/4 IS II. It has good image quality, internal zoom, and is easy to handle with the tripod collar. A lens I will definitely continue using is the EF100-400 II. It has excellent image quality. Another lens I won't part with is the TSE-24 II (with the ROGETI TSE Frame III). It has very good image quality and is easy to use. My other lenses are RF lenses: RF10-20, RF14-35, RF24-105, and the 16, 28, and 50 f/1.8.

The best EF lens I’ve ever interacted with was the 35mm f/1.4L II. The photos it produces 'sing' even as unedited RAW files. While the big white primes are likely even more magical, I’ve never had the chance to work with any of those.

These are my favorite EF lenses:

My EF 100-400 mm L Mk II spends the most time on my body.

Attached out-of-camera image taken on a G1X Mk I.

I don't currently own or use any RF lenses. My entire lens protfolio is EF. Many of these lenses have been aquired over a lot of years and I'm slow to swap out unless there is a strong incentive. Sometimes, "new and shiney" isn't enough for me. Although a new RF 85mm f1.2L for it's improved AF and sharpness, the RF 10-20mm for it's easy portability and the RF100-500mm LIS (replacing my venerable and trusty EF 100-400mm L II) would give me a lighter lens with a little bit of extra reach.

The EF 135mm f2.0 L is such a sweet lens and one of the few original (mk1) fast primes that render sharp images wide open on current top tier 45mp sensors.
For me, I had a long term love / hate relationship with the EF 50mm f1.2 L. I loved the build and reliability, but it's AF was as inconsistent as an early Sigma and I've had copies that just were not sharp regardless of aperture. For me, the RF 50mm f1.2 L is an obvious choice and I can't see any reason for the EF version otehr than price point or that it's already in your bag.

If the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L (mkI ) was a little sharper wide open on my R5, I would still be using this lens today. It's such a sweet lens, apart from wide open sharpness, it's better in many ways than the later mkII or even (dare I say it) the RF variant.

My EF 400mm f2.8 LIS mk II isn't going anywhere soon....although not as light and the later mkIII / RF version....it's so sharp with 1.4 or 2x TC's when shot wide open.

No love for the EF 35mm f1.4 II L? Is it too close in performance to the current RF 35mm f1.4 L VCM?

Other lenses like the EF 85mm f1.2 II L, EF 8-15mm L Fisheye and EF 11-24mm L are all lenses that have been suceeded and improved upon by RF mount variants that are all slightly superior in one or two aspects....however are still amazing optics.

Ph0t0 said:

I mean… I’m honestly surprised that you don’t realize— or perhaps just lack the imagination to see— that there are all sorts of images that can be taken with focal lengths over 50mm and at lower f-stops.

Click to expand...

I asked the forum for some examples since I don't shoot those genres... thanks for providing some but perhaps the commentary wasn't necessary. My only lens faster than f2.8 is for astro.
I am happy to seek information if I don't know it.

David - Sydney said:

What would be the use cases for 100/1.4 @f1.4 vs say a f2.8 like the current RF100 macro?

For portraiture, wouldn't keeping both eyes in focus be a problem @f1.4?
Planetary images perhaps?
For telephoto/wildlife, wouldn't you be too close?
Others?

Click to expand...

People don’t just photograph headshots for driver’s licenses where everything is close and everything needs to be in focus.

Even when shooting models or fashion, you can photograph the entire person from a bit further away, keep the whole head in focus, and get a different perspective due to compression, as opposed to shooting it with a 35mm or 50mm lens.

If you’re interested, I’ve personally shot a lot of stuff with a 135mm at f/1.8. Just a couple of examples: focusing on an isolated head in a crowd at a concert; a shot of a frontman on stage; a model in the sea at dusk (again a whole-body shot); a model swimming at dusk with city lights in the background; a silhouette of an ibex after sunset; a fashion model—whole body shot (with plenty of space to spare in the frame)—surrounded some architectural elements.
An athlete on a bike surrounded by spectators; an athlete (climber) hanging on a ledge at dusk; a side silhouette of an athlete jumping with a bike after sunset.

Then there are shots where I was focusing on different parts of instruments or tools for commercial work. Shooting people in laboratories—focusing on one person working with a machine and blurring the surroundings. I've done full body shots ( sometimes with loads of space left and right of the subject for some environment) of ballerinas and dancers, when it was convinient to blur out some of the ambient (you still get a pretty good idea where the person is) and keeping the focus on the model ...
Just last week I photographed a model that was standing on the inside of a hotel bar next to an open window. We were shooting at dusk, the lights were on inside, I had some light setup outside. I was shooting outside from the terrace, keeping the whole window frame and curtains in the picture, bluring it a bit and bluring the lights and stuff in the back of the room even more. And since the distance from the camera to the the model was cca 6-8 meters and the model was facing me, I can assure you that both eyes came out sharp in final images ;-)

There are so many examples where you either want things out of focus, or you simply don’t need everything to be in focus, but still need to open up the aperture to gather more light. I mean… I’m honestly surprised that you don’t realize— or perhaps just lack the imagination to see— that there are all sorts of images that can be taken with focal lengths over 50mm and at lower f-stops.

Click said:

Great shots, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Click!

SirIssacNewton said:

Ima

Imagine the first person who ever saw that majestic bird!!! Outstanding photos

Click to expand...

Thank you so much!

JKT said:

It doesn't help with the working distance, but I found the MP-E more practical with full frame. Then the 1:1 covers much larger selection of moths and the 5:1 doesn't go too deeply into diffraction territory (pixel size). As for the 35 ... get the 60! At least my 35 wasn't really good near 1:1.

I'd likely prefer something like 1:2 ... 3:1 on full frame. That would cover pretty much everything I shoot in macro. Then for those that want even smaller critters, another 2:1 ... 6:1.

Click to expand...

I agree with your comments. I chose the 35mm because it offered IS when none of Canon's DSLRs or M series bodies had any form of stabilization. I struggled too with the MP-E, until the R7 or R5 came along. Just having a stable image gave me a better chance of getting the right areas in focus. I've tried stacking but it hasn't been too successful.

"Cardinal on Snow"

EOS R1, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/800 s, f/5.6, ISO 400

illadvisedhammer said:

Well, since you mentioned it.. but this was with an OM-1 and 60 macro, not macro magnification, and cropped from full body..and it was a baby at black rock forest (NY, USA) while looking for ants.View attachment 228312View attachment 228320

Click to expand...

Not even the highest shutter speed + IS and IBIS would have saved "my" picture of the baby rattler.

SirIssacNewton said:

Brown Thrasher quickly becoming one of my favorites! Taken with my Canon R8 and 600mm f11

Click to expand...

Very nice series, Sir.

illadvisedhammer said:

Well, since you mentioned it.. but this was with an OM-1 and 60 macro, not macro magnification, and cropped from full body..and it was a baby at black rock forest (NY, USA) while looking for ants.View attachment 228312View attachment 228320

Click to expand...

Nice shots. Here in the UK we only have 3.5 species of snake. The .5 is an introduced species only found at two sites but would have been native here a couple of hundred years ago. Of the other three species, only the adder is venomous. They are quite relaxed snakes very rarely biting people. Usually they only bite when trodden on or some muppet grabs one. So I am comfortable photographing them with a 60mm on a crop body. I don’t know the species you show there so not sure how aggressive they are.

Distinctly Average said:

Dangerous subjects are a bit different, I would certainly not be shooting a rattlesnake with a 60mm macro.

Click to expand...

Well, since you mentioned it.. but this was with an OM-1 and 60 macro, not macro magnification, and cropped from full body..and it was a baby at black rock forest (NY, USA) while looking for ants.

Ima

danfaz said:

@ISv I trained this one to pose for me
View attachment 228302

A surly looking sub-adult Bald Eagle
View attachment 228304

Click to expand...

Imagine the first person who ever saw that majestic bird!!! Outstanding photos

Brown Thrasher quickly becoming one of my favorites! Taken with my Canon R8 and 600mm f11

David - Sydney said:

Planetary images perhaps?

Click to expand...

Do you mean solar system objects? Wide aperture is not required, and 100 is way too short.