For me I need 1x magnification, so this lens can’t replace a true macro lensMacro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?
Upvote
0
For me I need 1x magnification, so this lens can’t replace a true macro lensMacro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?
I initially thought that - but the 24-70 f/4L gives 0.7x, which is usable macro. 0.4x at 105mm is nice-to-have, but not the same thing.Far too low to replace a 1:1 like the 100L . However it would be there where you had the itch just like when carrying the 24-70 f/4L.
Ouch. Feels like the cripple hammer worked overtime on this one to differentiate with the L lens. You should have just made it about build quality and weather sealing Canon. That would have been enough.
Gee, we were all 'new entrants' to FF at some stage, so you're effectively calling everyone 'ignorant'. Very helpful. Kit lenses, if of decent quality, can be a great buy.Cheap kit lens, for the incomming cheap R6. They target ignorant new entrants customers.
Nothing for us here, not for the gear nerds.
7.1 seems more like a paper weight can’t be less than 5.6.7.1 ?! Well I guess if the price is right...
95% of peoples never read forums, barelly open the manual, have no clue what f7.1 means, and don't really care. They just buy one camera or another and shoot auto.Gee, we were all 'new entrants' to FF at some stage, so you're effectively calling everyone 'ignorant'. Very helpful. Kit lenses, if of decent quality, can be a great buy.
I'd have to care rather more about what you said to be offended. I do care about keeping the level of discussion on these threads at a respectful level, and that doesn't (in my opinion) include describing 95% of the photography gear market as ignorant.95% of peoples never read forums, barelly open the manual, have no clue what f7.1 means, and don't really care. They just buy one camera or another and shoot auto.
If you feel offended, are you in those 95% ?
Perhaps the Macro is not a design goal but a pleasant byproduct. Marketing team says,"Slap it on there!"I would much prefer f/4-5.6 and NO macro. But, you know.
f/8-16 usually works for most people, but this isn't 1:1 and serious macro, unusual or not will not be the job for this tool.
OMG you read my mind about reading this and thinking about shooting at f/8 with that same combo (this morning) and not once thinking about wanting 'more' just working with what I had.Wow people don't seem to have a grip on reality tonight. f/7.1, that's only good for a paper weight, a rebel user, ignorant new entrants customers, batting practice...... seriously folks, need to go home if the clouds come out!? Talk to the people that have spent 3k to mount a 100-400 on a 1.4x and shoot at f/8, or a 2x at f/11. Lots of people shooting sports and wildlife with those combinations and quite happy with the results when a 10k option isn't an option - but they (me) must be ignorant for being happy with these results.
If the price is right, the lens small, and image quality decent, this lens will make a lot of people happy.
I like your Big Orange JDrumsticks now?