Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

  • Thread starter Thread starter tianxiaozhang
  • Start date Start date
THX723 said:
rpt said:
Don Haines said:
And the Andromeda Galaxy..... not just for things small and/or close.....
Wow! That is cool! On the iPad I can't see the Exif. I'll look at it later. Really curious about the settings. It looks very crisp.
Yeah I'm a little confused. EFIX reads ...

30 seconds, f/5.6, ISO1600 (via EOS 60D), 400mm (via 120-400mm)
... which I presume is the EF70-200 @f/2.8 + 2X TC

Surely the EXIF info is amiss. Apart from the wrong lens for the discussion, there isn't remotely enough exposure time for that outcome. :-X

Exif is wrong, (was 30 seconds), but rest is wrong... was 400 5.6 lens shot at 5.6, 1.4 teleconverter, 5D2, ISO 3200 .... posted wrong image. I will remove post and image and stick the right one on tonight when I get home.
 
Upvote 0
Most inappropriate use of macro lens.... instead of something very small or very close, something very big and very far.

The andromeda galaxy.... The image is unedited from the camera jpg, with the exception of cropping to the center 50% to meet website guidelines. The shot was taken an a very clear night, handheld (with the help of a tree for bracing) with a 60D, F2.8, ISO3200, 10.4 second exposure, no image stabilization, manual focus, and no flash :). All image settings were neutral or camera default.

Normally I can not spot andromeda with the naked eye but this night was so clear that it was easy.
 

Attachments

  • andromeda.jpg
    andromeda.jpg
    621.6 KB · Views: 3,432
Upvote 0
this lens and the 14L are ALMOST all I need (and a camera body) ... maybe the Sigma 35

I was thrilled when they added I.S.
same sharpness as the old one..... but now a bit more flex ...

don't use a tripod at all...not even with the old one
 

Attachments

  • 1765360.jpg
    1765360.jpg
    886.4 KB · Views: 3,227
  • 1270427.jpg
    1270427.jpg
    713 KB · Views: 3,179
  • 2153270.jpg
    2153270.jpg
    739.4 KB · Views: 3,126
  • 2172673.jpg
    2172673.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 3,285
Upvote 0
I just purchased this lens last week and can't believe how sharp it is! What a amazing lens! Here is a picture I took with it last weekend of a painted turtle in a wildlife refuge I was hiking in.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5959.JPG
    IMG_5959.JPG
    1.9 MB · Views: 2,502
Upvote 0
QK2unya.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Tom Surak said:
I just purchased this lens last week and can't believe how sharp it is! What a amazing lens! Here is a picture I took with it last weekend of a painted turtle in a wildlife refuge I was hiking in.

Glad you know your Turtles... for if it were a snapping Turtle, it would have showed your 100mm, how sharp "it" is. :P
 
Upvote 0
I have the non-L 100mm myself, bought many years ago before the 'L' was available. Does anyone who has upgraded from the 'non-L' to the 'L' have a view whether they can see a material difference in image quality? These are some of the flowers in our garden, taken today.
 

Attachments

  • OW0C1917.jpg
    OW0C1917.jpg
    346.5 KB · Views: 2,195
  • OW0C1902.jpg
    OW0C1902.jpg
    172.3 KB · Views: 2,191
  • OW0C1941.jpg
    OW0C1941.jpg
    154.9 KB · Views: 2,164
Upvote 0