Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Nice summary.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Nice summary.
You are probably right. I borrowed the 100 f2.8 L IS USM from my favorite camera shop to try yesterday. With both lenses on a tripod, there isn't any difference in sharpness to the old non-IS version. So unless you want to go out chasing little bugs, butterflies, dragonflys, etc....the old non-IS version is a better deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius
I just want to clarify this because I don't want to be later misconstrued as saying something I didn't say or mean to say. As I mentioned earlier, I have never actually used the EF 100/2.8 macro, so I can't make any claims as to whether the EF 100/2.8L macro IS actually is any sharper. What I can say is that I have seen photos taken by others with the older lens, and they look pretty good to me, in the sense that it appears good macro technique is more of a determinant in resultant sharpness near 1:1 than any differences in published MTF. As for "normal" working distances, I have even less data since in such cases it's less obvious to pick out if an image was taken with the 100/2.8. A portrait taken with this lens and posted online is often hard to distinguish from a portrait taken with the 100/2, 85/1.8, 135/2L, 85/1.2L, etc. without looking at the EXIF--unless that portrait happens to be of an ant! LOL
Also, the 100/2.8L macro IS appears to be at least as sharp as the 100/2.8 macro. That much I am able to see from the results of my own (admittedly naive) test shots. Optically, it's a very solid performer under all conditions, which should come as no surprise. I would love to see Bryan do a test chart series as I don't trust myself to do it right.
As to value, I leave that decision up to the individual. It's a personal thing, because there isn't really a single objective utility function for the value of a lens across all consumers. I'm content to state my own observations about the lens I did buy, and how I believe Canon has positioned it relative to their other offerings.
Now back to shooting dead bugs in boxes. [:D]
Okay, so here are some more images.
Here we have an unidentified mineral sample believed to be of Hungarian or Eastern European origin, approximately 1.5" long by 0.5" diameter. Handheld, 1/25s @ ISO 2500 @ f/11, +2/3 EV, 1:1 magnification, resized 15% of original. Any assistance in identifying this specimen would be much appreciated. It is brittle, with low density.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0013.JPG[/img]
Next, we have a specimen of Lamprima adolphinae. Tripod, 1.3s @ ISO 100 @ f/11, +2/3 EV, 1:1 magnification, resized 21.4% of original.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0019.JPG[/img]
Same as above, 100% crop.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0019c.JPG[/img]
I suppose there's a pattern here...I like to collect iridescent objects [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Nice.... you can see the lens segments.
I have a feeling you're beginning to really like that Macro lens.
damn, i had almost convinced myself to start saving for some PocketWizards, but i want this lens. ah well it all academic right now as i cant afford either lol.
I got mine two weeks earlier than my photostore told me. I was thrilled!
When I got the call that they received two (2!) I said "Where do I sign?"
I had the chance today to feed my young Boa Constrictor and took some macro shots. I could take very upclose pics at about 1/60 to 1/80 sec. Though I cannot decide for anyone else if the markup for the IS is it worth for you. Handling is good.
AF performance with my 5DII is *really* good - very fast I must say. It rarely hunts for AF.
Judging by Bryan's ISO Crops, the new IS is a *tad* sharper at all apertures.
What I did notice though was, that the lens hood is pretty long. I can't say if Canon was just over-achieving - I have no comparison. But at 1:1 ratio, the lens hood is just inches away from the subject. Lens-hood shading *will* really easily occur. What annoys me most though is, that you cannot put the lens cover on with the lens hood installed. Removing it is possible but fiddly...
All in all, I'm quite positively surprised!
Oh, I hadn't noticed that Bryan already did the test charts. To my eyes, I see the new IS has noticeably better contrast and is sharper in the center at all apertures. But there appears to be more chromatic aberration in the edges and corners. I am guessing this has to do with the addition of an IS group, which is partially (but not completely) compensated for by the use of UD glass.
As for the lens hood, I left it in the box. It is really deep and I don't see much reason to use it at present. You could always get a pinch-type lens cap...for the life of me I can't understand why Canon doesn't make these.
I do like this lens very much, but mainly because I am rapidly becoming addicted to macro photography in general.... It's like discovering a first love.
Exactly! Like some sort of love. Macro is really really fun!
I hadn't noticed the additional CA, but color&contrast look really good to me.
Thanks for the hint about the pinch-type lens caps. I really dig those - my brother in-law (Nikon D700) gets envious glances for this...
Okay let's play the "guess the macro" game. Here's a photo I took, 1:1, 50% crop. Can you guess what it is? [:D] It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out...I don't want to make it impossible!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/IMG_5F00_0034c.JPG[/img]