Poll: Which Macro will you choose

[diver-hloc]

I don't know how useful IS would be for macro, but I hope Canon will produce it so that we can find out for ourselves. A 180mm macro IS would be sweet - if it doesn't weigh a ton and cost a couple of limbs or some other body part.

I got a friend using a 100mm Macro on a 400D..... which makes it 160mm after the crop of x1.6.

He complaint all the time that its quite hard to stable the lens due to how close the subject is..... But like you said, I too hope that Canon would make a MkII for the 'old' EF 100mm f2.8 Macro. :bsmilie:

 

[Benosaurous]

after reading this thread i would say, the ts just thinks that expensive means not worth it. 100mm f2.8 canon is pretty much one of the sharpest and worth the buck lens i would recommend, because i seen its results.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomquah/2612897687/in/set-72157603796519782/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomquah/2480068757/in/set-72157603796519782/

take a look at one of my contact's portfolio.

and OT, 16-35 is also a much sharper and powerful lens than 17-40, it is just that alot of people including the ts feels that 2x more expensive, means it must be 2x more powerful, forgetting the versatile of the lens aperature. 1 lens can do the job of 2 without changing, thats the buck u are paying for.

if you compare things that way, i would say just stick with 3rd party lens.

 

[Leong23]

after reading this thread i would say, the ts just thinks that expensive means not worth it. 100mm f2.8 canon is pretty much one of the sharpest and worth the buck lens i would recommend, because i seen its results.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomquah/2480068757/in/set-72157603796519782/

take a look at one of my contact's portfolio.

Not very helpful comments or links.......

If follow your link and base on the photo post in that flickr, My Tamron 90 can produced better results. :bsmilie:

 

[Benosaurous]

and where is ur results?

 

[Leong23]

and where is ur results?

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yanleong23/

 

[Benosaurous]

nice shot man, but in terms of sharpness, i still vote for my friend. at least we have photos for TS to judge.

and btw, urs didnt have exif information attached, which lens or software used in editing wasnt in the info.

all my friend did is dpp.

 

[lightning]

Canon MP-E 65 - A true Macro...5:1

 

[Leong23]

Canon MP-E 65 - A true Macro...5:1

Oh Yeah.... agreed. :thumbsup:

 

[Leong23]

Sorry to OT on the previous posting.

TS, get the one that fit you budget, of course Canon 100mm will be perform better than 3rd party, but Tamron 90mm is a value of money, one of the moderator in CS actually posted a test before.

Benosaurous, what i meant is when giving advice, do give accuate advice than just say i think is good, saw it the result before and link some "not so good photo". Do learn from others backing up with some good fact to support. If not you are not helping but somehow confusing the TS.

 

[scastyong]

thanks Leong23.. that's the spirit

As i think those saying IS version of macro lens, I wonder is it that you are using free hand to take? I thought most of the macro photographer will use a monopod or a versatile tripod to take it in order to prevent hand shake?

Next
is Canon MP-E 65 can be mount on all EF mount camera? but pls.. haha.. way out of my budget.. If I have some sort of budget I think i better get myself a 70-200 F/4L IS USM 1st

 

[lennyl]

As i think those saying IS version of macro lens, I wonder is it that you are using free hand to take? I thought most of the macro photographer will use a monopod or a versatile tripod to take it in order to prevent hand shake?

Next
is Canon MP-E 65 can be mount on all EF mount camera? but pls.. haha.. way out of my budget.. If I have some sort of budget I think i better get myself a 70-200 F/4L IS USM 1st

For macro shots of insects, especially those that fly, it is not easy doing it on a tripod, unless you do the ethically questionable and chill / chloroform them first. Monopod can still benefit from VR / IS.

The reason I don't think IS is very useful is because you would need fast shutter speed to freeze motion anyway.

MP-E 65 can mount on any EF mount camera. But if you get that, you'll probably need the MT-24EX. Definitely not a cheap toy if you're not using it to make money. You can also consider a T-mount adapter and a microscope for extreme macro needs.

 

[ortega]

Tamron 90 Field test

more important is how well you use whatever lens you decide to get, skills are more important than equipment

a well taken not so sharp image is way better than a badly taken sharp image

 

[scastyong]

Tamron 90 Field test

more important is how well you use whatever lens you decide to get, skills are more important than equipment

a well taken not so sharp image is way better than a badly taken sharp image

hm.. i think both are important, both of them work side by side.. if u have a good skill but the image is hardly stay sharp like before I use Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro.. find me a hard time to make it focus.. man.. if that creature is active like spider.. how are you goin to get a nice shots?

like this 1 it took me around half and hour and still not as good.

this one as well.. using me around 30 minutes for it.. luckily it didn't flew away.. flash is apply and turn up the eye is not detail.. sigh..

so with good skill but bad image quality really can work out as a good shot?

 

[scastyong]

thanks man.. I think then i call myself a cheapo guy better.. student here.. if I can budget for that I shouldn't have come here and make a poll