New Lens Recommendations Wanted

Well, It's that time again. Its been a couple of years since I have contributed to my lens arsenal, and I am getting the itch to spend money on new glass. I was hoping to get some opinions from the forum.


I don't have a particular purpose or need for this lens, But I am looking for something that is fast with excellent IQ. Outstanding sharpness is my number one desire, speed being second and macro capabilities would be a nice addition.


98% of my shooting is outdoors, landscape, wildlife, basically anything nature.


I shoot with a 7D, I currently have a 10-22, 24-105L and a 100-400L.


I am considering:


The 100L F2.8 Macro


The 135 L F2.0


The 180 L F3.f Macro


I am leaning toward the 100L F2.8 macro, but before purchase, I wanted to get your insights and opinions.


Thanks,


Bob

The first lens that came to mind when I read your second paragraph was the 135mm f/2L so good to see we're in the same ball park with focal lengths at least.


Reading on though, I don't think the 135mm f/2 will be well suited to macro work since MFD is 900mm and MM 0.19x. Sure you can add extension tubes, but I've found that you don't get the same results as you would with a dedicated macro lens.


The 100mm f/2.8 IS gives you a similar focal length as the 135mm, a much closer MFD of 300mm, 1X magnification, is still sharp and reasonably fast at f/2.8.


The 180mm f/3.5L macro is certainly sharp, but loses out with the slower focusing, lack of IS, and smaller max aperture.


I think the 100mm f/2.8L IS would be your best bet and would compliment the rest of your gear nicely considering the types of photography you enjoy.

Ben,


Thanks for the response---The 100 F2.8L is certainly the one i am favoring at this point, but I have heard so much about the IQ of the 135, That I have to at least consider it. I would also throw in the 85 L 1.2, But it is simply out of my price range right now.


Thanks,


Bob

Hi! Bob


the rumor said there might be a 200mm 4.0L IS Macro coming out, I know you can't count on the rumors, just more information you may want to know.

Good Info, Canon usually announces in August, Maybe I'll wait---1 Month.


Thanks for the tip


Bob

I've got the 100 mm F2.8 macro and it's an excellent lens. You will love it in the new world it will open up for you. If I was to buy now, I would consider the 100 mm F2.8 IS L macro instead. When you are shooting close up, especially trying to line up that small critter and manually focus on it, the IS could be helpful. I've learned to really appreciate the IS on other lenses and this is something to consider for macro use.

Thanks, Ed. It's Always nice to have someone reinforce your thoughts. The IS version is the one I am considering if I didn't specify. My only hesitation is that I really like the feel of L lenses with the metal barrels. But by all accounts I have read, no one has been dissapointed with the buld quality and feel of the plastic barrel of this lens.


Bob

<div>


Hey Bob,


Since, you pretty much have the entire Zoom Range covered from 10mm-400mm. I think you're definitely on the right track with a nice Fast, Sharp, Prime Lens, and the Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS definitely fits that bill.


It has plenty of speed for outdoor use and it's tack sharp. This Lens looks like it was made for the 7D, it's also pretty light and easy to handle. It provides 160mm on the 1.6 crop body, which is the perfect length. I agree with Ben, the 180mm is slower, doesn't have IS, and in my opinion is a bit too long for a crop body (288mm), Macro Lens and it's probably better suited for a FF body.


The 100mm Macro also has a 67mm front element, which translates to, "Some of your other filters won't fit."


The day you buy this Lens, is the day that it will become the sharpest Lens that you own so far. This lens will also double as a nice telephoto portrait lens on the 7D.


Here's a sample taken in low light, and in the shade around 6pm Handheld.


7D, EF-100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, 100mm @ f/10, 1/160sec. 0ev, ISO 2000 (Not Cropped)


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.44.62/Nesting-Pigeon-0948.jpg[/img]
</div>


Rich

Very Nice, Thanks Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

98% of my shooting is outdoors, landscape, wildlife, basically anything nature.

---

I think the 100L would be perfect for you; I love using it on my 5D2. I used to shoot the 70-200 f/4 L IS a lot for macros just because of the I.S. (you can actually get pretty good magnification with a TC and/or extension tubes), but the keeper rate on the 100L is even better (I think). Not to mention sharp as a tack -- even wide open. The focus ring is nice and smooth. If you were going to be indoors and stopped down, you could probably save money with a non-L macro, but if you like to be tripod free when you're outdoors, then go for it. I also love shooting the 135, but I don't think I would use it as much for nature stuff.


The 180 macro is a good consideration too, but I've never used it. It gives you more working distance, which is critical especially for outdoors stuff, but without I.S. you might find that you can't stop down enough, even in sunlight. (For 1:1 at 180mm on a 7D, I'm pretty sure I would need at least 1/500 just to get a 25% keeper rate).

Hi Bob -


The 100L F2.8 IS Macro lens is awesome! You would not regret purchasing it! I have a variety of different lenses and this is definitely one of my favorites. I won't repeat what everyone has already said about it but just want to stress how versatile of a lens it is. Also, macro photography, whether you are photographing plants, insects or whatever itis just plainfun!To get up close to insects and observe them is challenging and very interesting ...it's just alot cooler than I imagined it would be!

Good luck with your decision!

Denise

I'm in favor of the 100mm L as well, better yet I ordered one myself last week to replace my old 100mm macro, but they are out of stock here so I'll have to wait [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

My only hesitation is that I really like the feel of L lenses with the metal barrels. But by all accounts I have read, no one has been dissapointed with the buld quality and feel of the plastic barrel of this lens.

---

Well I have thought about the 135L myself as well, but since I like to go outside and shoot whenever whatever, I kinda missed the weather-sealing on that lens. In other words: for nature, wildlife, outdoorsy I rather prefer a high quality plastic lens with IS and weather-sealing over a metal-barreled lens.


Have fun with it [H]


Jan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

I shoot with a 7D, I currently have a 10-22, 24-105L and a 100-400L.


I am considering:


The 100L F2.8 Macro


The 135 L F2.0


The 180 L F3.f Macro

---

Hi Bob,


I have the 7D and the three lenses in your kit, and also the 100mm L Macro - I can assure you that it's a great addition to your kit. It pairs well with the 7D, too - the AI Servo AF mode on the 7D has mode that's a higher precision AF that's automatically activated when you use a (Canon) macro lens - so, the IS on the lens stabilizes angular and lateral movements, and the AI Servo II mode compensates for on-axis movements when shooting macro handheld.


I'll also second Denise's statement that it's a versatile lens - I've gotten great portraits with it, in addition to the macro uses. I posted these examples one of Jan's threads, but they are relevant here - they were taken within a few minutes of each other, with the 100mm L Macro.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/...d878ff6f7b.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/...71d4eac7f2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

My only hesitation is that I really like the feel of L lenses with the metal barrels.

---

FYI, the barrel of your 24-105mm f/4L IS is engineering plastic, just like the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. The 100mm L Macro definitely feels like an L lens.



Good luck with your decision!


--John

I'm all for the 100L, but can I ask why you haven't bought any fast primes up until this point? (28 1.8, sigma 30 1.4, 50 1.4/1.8, 85 1.8). L Disease? Only shooting outdoor in good light? All have very nice apertures and are at least as sharp as your current glass stopped down a bit. You've spent so much on some amazing zoom lenses (all of which I have and love) but didn't even get a nifty fifty along the way.


Instead of the 100L, you could consider the ef-s 60 macro. I really liked that lens and only upgraded to the 100 non-L when I went FF recently. It's a lot cheaper and also about half the size or smaller than the 100 options. IS is great but I've never thought it was would be that huge of an advantage for macro. At macro magnification even the slightest breeze shows up as pretty significant subject motion on flowers for example. It also won't make focusing that much easier since I find handheld macro focusing has a lot to do with your forward/backward motion which the 100L's IS doesn't account for. I'm sure it's good for completely stationary objects since macro requires so much light, but that still doesn't seem worth it to me. Maybe I'm missing something that makes it worth the added costs. To me it seems like you have a big whole in your kit (fast primes) that I'd rather see you spend that extra money on, but that depends largely on your photography needs. 60 macro + 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 would be money and camera bag space better spent in my mind.


I stress the size of the 60 because I personally rarely go out intending to shoot macro. It happens, but a lot of macro stuff also comes from having my macro lens in my kit when I went out on a nice day. This is easier done with the 60, but then again if you're lugging the 100-400L around then size and weight probably aren't much of a concern :P


-Yoni

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

The 180 macro is a good consideration too, but I've never used it. It gives you more working distance, which is critical especially for outdoors stuff, but without I.S. you might find that you can't stop down enough, even in sunlight. (For 1:1 at 180mm on a 7D, I'm pretty sure I would need at least 1/500 just to get a 25% keeper rate).

---

Great point Daniel, Thanks for pointing that out-- I haven't given the increased exposure requirements 1:1 shooting, much thought. In this case the IS on the 100 would definetly come in handy.---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StapledPhoto

but can I ask why you haven't bought any fast primes up until this point?

---

Well, When I first started about 3 years ago, My primary interest was wildlife, so I first rented the 100 to 400, fell in love with it and ultimately bought it. The came the need for a general walk around lens-hence the 24-105. Then the urge for an ultra wide angle---So I bought the 10-22--though this one is a lot of fun, I really haven't used it much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StapledPhoto

L Disease

---

Well of course, But not really. It just seems that the L's tend to meet my needs at the time I am able to buy. I have also had cheap non-Ls (kit Lens and 75-300) which left me very dissapointed. If you can show me a non L that is extremely sharp, fast, weather sealed and fantastic build quality for half the price, I would certainly be willing to give ita shot. Actually, the weather sealing is very important to me since I find myself in the rain, snow or blowing dust fairly often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StapledPhoto

Instead of the 100L, you could consider the ef-s 60 macro

---

Well, A few reasons. The 100 meets the needs I mentioned before and also has a greater working distance than the 60.Even though I havethe 10-22,I am trying to stay away from Ef-S lenses in the future because I do plan to by the 1DIV one of these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StapledPhoto

This is easier done with the 60, but then again if you're lugging the 100-400L around then size and weight probably aren't much of a concern :P

---

Well, Your right, I am used to lugging a heavy lens, But my truck is usually close by. If I plan on walking long distances, I just focus on my intended subject matter and reduce my load accordingly.


Yoni, Thanks for your input, It certainly gave me a lot to consider and I appreciate that.


Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

The 100L F2.8 IS Macro lens is awesome! You would not regret purchasing it

---

Now Thas what I want to hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Also, macro photography, whether you are photographing plants, insects or whatever itis just plainfun!To get up close to insects and observe them is challenging and very interesting ...it's just alot cooler than I imagined it would be!

---

Though I haven't done any yet, I think your right Denise, I just sounds like fun----And you get a good portrait lens to boot.

I had the EF-S 60 and sold it to get the 100L. 100L is hands down a better choice. As a portrait lens I found the EF-S 60 to be way too soft. 100L provides more working distance and is an excellent portrait lens. I use it on a 5D mostly and occasionally on a 40D. I opted for the Canon tripod ring which was very pricey when compared to the China knock offs but the quality is excellent. Build quality of 100L is VG, feels a lot like my 24-105 f/4L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

the AI Servo AF mode on the 7D has mode that's a higher precision AF that's automatically activated when you use a (Canon) macro lens

---

I missed that in the reading, Now, I have to pull out owners manual and read up on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

the barrel of your 24-105mm f/4L IS is engineering plastic, just like the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. The 100mm L Macro definitely feels like an L lens.

---

I would have never known---If the 100L feels like my 24-105---Then I will definitely be satisfied with it. I love the feel and the weight of the 24-105.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I'll also second Denise's statement that it's a versatile lens - I've gotten great portraits with it, in addition to the macro uses. I posted these examples one of Jan's threads, but they are relevant here - they were taken within a few minutes of each other, with the 100mm L Macro.

---

These are very Nice Shots, I like the Bokeh in the butterfly shot and the portrait (both model and picture quality is gorgeous).


John, I definitely appreciate your input as well as the input of all of the others. You, Denise, Daniel and the rest have certainly helped cement my decision. I plan on ordering the lenstoday or tomorrow and maybe by next weekend I'll have some shots that National Geographic will pay top dollar for[:O]. Well we can always wish.


Thanks again for your insightful response. As always, it is greatly appreciated.


Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

I had the EF-S 60 and sold it to get the 100L. 100L is hands down a better choice.

---

Thanks Tom, Thats what I am hoping for---and according to you and most others, that is what I'll get.


Thanks again, Bob

The EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM is a nice lens. You already have a lens that covers that length, but the 300 has a nice minimal focus distance (for butterflies and stuff), is lightweight and quite fast I think. The IS on it is REALLY nice and when you put a 1.4x converter on it, the images still look real nice! Not sure if that's the one to go with (the 100mm L I think would be great for you) but it's a fun one and wanted to mention it! It also has a nice built-in lens hood. You could go with that or the 400 f/5.6 and get rid of the 100-400... though that might be a bit dangerous. The 100-400 is a real nice wildlife lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

The EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM is a nice lens. You already have a lens that covers that length, but the 300 has a nice minimal focus distance (for butterflies and stuff), is lightweight and quite fast I think. The IS on it is REALLY nice and when you put a 1.4x converter on it, the images still look real nice! Not sure if that's the one to go with (the 100mm L I think would be great for you) but it's a fun one and wanted to mention it! It also has a nice built-in lens hood. You could go with that or the 400 f/5.6 and get rid of the 100-400... though that might be a bit dangerous. The 100-400 is a real nice wildlife lens.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Bob,


Jordan's got a good point. The 100 mm F/2.8 macro is a great lens that you can stick in the face of a critter to get some great shots. BUT what if the critter doesn't like to have that nice piece of glass right in it's face? That's where the 300 mm F/4 L IS comes in. With a close focusing distance and the 1.4x extender on a 7D body, it is like having a 672 mm F/5.6 semi-macro lens. You can keep your distance from the shy critter(s) and still get some decent shots. (I tried using the 100 mm F/2.8 on the first two shots and everything scattered.) I've just included 3 of my shots into the "Best Macro shot" thread.


I still think your best bet is the 100 mm F/2.8 IS L macro but if you have a special application, this may also be suitable. I don't know how close the 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 IS L zoom focuses to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdN

the 1.4x extender on a 7D body, it is like having a 672 mm F/5.6

---

Minor correction: it's actually like having a 672mm f/9. The 1.6X factor applies to both focal length and f-number.

[b][url="/forums/members/Daniel-Browning/default.aspx]Daniel Browning[/url][/b]<span class="ForumPostTitleDate"]

<div>

</div>
<blockquote>
<div>[img]/forums/Themes/hawaii/images/icon-quote.gif[/img] EdN:</div>
<div>the 1.4x extender on a 7D body, it is like having a 672 mm F/5.6</div>
</blockquote>


Minor correction: it's actually like having a 672mm f/9. The 1.6X factor applies to both focal length and f-number.





Can anyone confirm this 1.6 crop factor applying to the f/stop? Here is a shot of my son I took using a 40D w/ 70-200 f/2.8L IS and 1.4X ext. The exif data from Photoshop shows f/l of 280 with f/4.0. I always heard that the tele ext. of 1.4X loses 1 stop and the 2X losses 2 stops, but never heard of the 1.6 body crop effecting anything but the focal length.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/Bigelow_5F00_012_5F00_DxO.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

The exif data from Photoshop shows f/l of 280 with f/4.0.

---

Yes. The exif displays the actual focal length, not the full-frame equivalent (450mm).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

...never heard of the 1.6 body crop effecting anything but the focal length.

---

That is expected. Very few people are aware of the relationships between format size and f-number. And by the way, the body crop doesn't really affect the focal length. It affects the angle of view. So 450mm on full frame has the same angle of view as 280mm on crop. In the same way, body crop doesn't affect f-number, but it does affect depth of field, diffraction, and noise. So f/5.6 on full frame has the same DOF, diffraction, and noise level as f/3.5 on crop (all else equal).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

Can anyone confirm this 1.6 crop factor applying to the f/stop? Here is a shot of my son I took using a 40D w/ 70-200 f/2.8L IS and 1.4X ext. The exif data from Photoshop shows f/l of 280 with f/4.0. I always heard that the tele ext. of 1.4X loses 1 stop and the 2X losses 2 stops, but never heard of the 1.6 body crop effecting anything but the focal length.

---

Yes, the 1.6x FOVCF applies to the effective aperture as well, in terms of depth of field and total light gathering ability.


Presumably the lens was set to 200mm f/2.8 for the shot, with the teleconverter. The EXIF data shows the correct focal length (280mm, which is 200mm x 1.4), and the correct aperture (f/4, which is one stop slower than f/2.8). Those data are correct for the lens + TC. You'll note that the EXIF data don't show the focal length as 448mm (200mm x 1.4 x 1.6); likewise, the correct aperture (for the lens) is shown, not the aperture adjusted for your sensor's crop factor.


The effective focal length for your shot is 448mm, but that's because of the effect of the crop factor on the field of view. Put another way, the magnification of the subject is the same on 1.6x and FF sensors, but the FoV is restricted by the crop factor. So, to get the same framing on a crop sensor as you'd have on a FF sensor, you need to move further away from the subject. Moving further away from a subject (but keeping the same real focal length and aperture) increases the depth of field for that shot. Thus, a 1.6x crop sensor, compared to FF for the same subject framing, has a deeper DoF - equivalent to an aperture of about 1.6 times narrower.


You can read more in the DoFMaster tutorial on the subject.

Yes I was aware of the effective focal length, FOV, and now I am aware of the effective f-stop. However other than studio work when adjusting for the correct amount of light (if I was using a crop camera), I question whether this is useful info when out and about shooting. My concerns then are setting the camera f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, WB, etc., not the effective ones. If it looks right in the view finder and the meter is where I want it to be I'm good to go. Am I missing anything here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

question whether this is useful info when out and about shooting. My concerns then are setting the camera f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, WB, etc., not the effective ones. If it looks right in the view finder and the meter is where I want it to be I'm good to go. Am I missing anything here?

---

No, you're not missing anything. Your camera will meter correctly. The effect of sensor crop on apparent aperture is only on depth of field, noise and diffraction - not on exposure (I mentioned that total light gathering ability is also affected, which is because the FF image circle is larger than the crop sensor, so light is 'lost' - but, the light falling on a unit area of the sensor will be the same no matter what the sensor size).


It's useful info only if you're used to shooting on a FF/film camera, or walking about with both FF and crop bodies, in that you need to be aware of the effects on DoF (i.e. if you require really razor thin DoF, use the lens on FF).

I see, thank you. BTW how are you enjoying the 70-300 DO now that you have had it a while?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

BTW how are you enjoying the 70-300 DO now that you have had it a while?

---

Hi Tom,


So far, I'm really liking my 70-300mm DO. It's compact enough that I find myself taking it along on family outings where otherwise I would have only brought the 24-105mm or 17-55mm, and thus getting shots I otherwise would have missed. I used to do something similar when I had the 200mm f/2.8L prime - the 70-300mm DO is even smaller, and more versatile (and I don't mind that it's slower, since outings where I take the DO are generally on nice days).


Here's an example from a short walk with my daughter through a park near our house. (I must confess that I didn't see the frog's little red companion until I opened the file in DPP - but I really like that little bit of color in the shot!)


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/...48641a03_b.jpg
EOS 7D, EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 <span style="color: #00ff7f;"]DO IS USM @ 300mm, 1/500, f/6.3, ISO 640

Since I am also interested in this lens I copied your image and ran it through DxO Optics. I increased sharpness and lowered the mid-range curve a bit. I like it as I see more detail in the frogs back but more importantly I wanted to see if I could correct some of the lens shortfalls and I think I have even though I do not have the module for the 7D and 70-300 DO installed.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/4865911708_5F00_d948641a03_5F00_b_5F00_DxO.jpg[/img]

Nice work - really shows what that lens can do...and what a small Curves correction can do too. The only quibble I have is the foreground leaves look a little too crunchy now...not sure if that's the lens' bokeh or the sharpening you applied.


I love DxO for its geometric correction panel but to separate the sharpening (local corrections) you really need layers I think.