135 mm f/2.0 L vs 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS

[Superman]

I do have a tripod, Giottos w/Manfrotto 486rc2 head - it's not bad, servicable.


I can live with the f/4 zooms b/c most of the stuff I do with the zooms are out doors with decent to good lighting (day at the park, zoo, amusement park, bbq - stuff like that). I agree with your point about adding fast primes - hence the though behind getting the 135 mm f/2 L. I figure I will at some point also get the 85 mm f/1.8 and maybe even a wider on like the 35 mm f/1.4 L or the 28 mm f/1.8. Indoors I figure I will be able to foot zoom most of the time.


I also agree 135 mm is a little long indoors (that's where the 85 and 35 come in - but much farther down the road, can live with the nifty fifty for now). If/when I do get the 135 mm it will be primarily for my daughter's dance stuff and hopefully down the road some indoor sports - especially when she is able to move really fast.


Right now, taking into consideration my daughter's age, the impending newborn, available finances, long term plans (bet'cha they change) and everyone's helpful comments, I think the winner is the 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS with the 135 mm being the next target to save for and the 24-105 mm after that.


Thank you everyone for your thoughts and comments


Clark

[Sheiky]

Hey guys, sorry I didn't reply earlier to the answers on my own question [] I seem to have less time for TDP lately, but I'll catch up, get my priorities straight []

The issue is depth of field. If you're ok with a shallow DoF, or you're shooting on a very bright day or with a flash

You are right John, I do shoot most of my macro's with the help of my 430EX2 flash. Probably 99,9% of the shots and I often ask myself if light isn't too flat or how I could improve my shots.

Obviously, if you're shooting crawling buggies, then you need a faster shutter speed, so you have to go with a wide aperture (and likely get just the eye and maybe part of the head in focus), or add light with a flash.

Well this is part of the "problem" for me (problem = I don't get it why a tripod is such a necessity when shooting macro [:P]) I mainly shoot when walking around and discovering strange little creatures and often they don't really sit still. A tripod or IS wouldn't help me out in those cases. I don't lure creatures or something so a tripod also seems to be to static for my uses (or my tripod is just a piece of crap [A])


As far as the depth of field issue goes...It doesn't really matter if I use f16 or even smaller, my FF sensor doesn't like too much depth of field anyways. Man...it's something to get used to and in a few cases I wished I still had a crop-body for those benefits.



<div>

I'll go you one better. Okay, not a great macro shot. Butthiswas not only shot with a tripod, but is a composite image made from several pictures of the same subject (its called "focus stacking" or something). The grasshopper stayed perfectly still for over a minute while I took about a dozen shots using a tripod and macro rails.

I don't have a lot of opportunities where bugs stay still for such long times. I heard about the technique though and I probably will try it out once. Did you use some kind of front/backwards-slider on your tripod? Do those things even exist? I can't image that you move your tripod for each shot [:P] To be very honest Jon, it looks like the eye isn't really 100% sharp, but it could also look like it, because the rest looks pretty sharp to me (perhaps the eyes aren't that shiny?)...interesting technique, nicely done!



<div>

Thiswas also shot with a tripod, though I did use a flash also.

My true respect for that, getting so close with a tripod...the 65mm lens hasn't got much space in front of the lens if I'm correct? Very nice shot! I felt free to look in your picasa for more macro-shots, nice ones [Y] hope you didn't mind?


I assumed you used your twin-flash for all these shots? I want to upgrade my macro-gear if I can, perhaps trading the 430 flash for a 580 or a dedicated macro-flash. Or perhaps do get the L-macro lens with IS...I'm not sure what to get...and what impact it will have on my shots.



<div>

Some bugs move. Some don't

Amen to that [H]
</div>






<div>

Right now, taking into consideration my daughter's age, the impending newborn, available finances, long term plans (bet'cha they change) and everyone's helpful comments, I think the winner is the 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS with the 135 mm being the next target to save for and the 24-105 mm after that.

You'll be happy with it [] Good choice mister Superman [H]


Jan
</div>



</div>






</div>

[Jon Ruyle]

Did you use some kind of front/backwards-slider on your tripod? Do those things even exist? I can't image that you move your tripod for each shot [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

No, I didn't move the tripod each time. The camera moves perhaps a millimeter each time, maybe a fraction of a millimeter. I used macro rails. You turn a knob and the camera moves a tiny bit.

the 65mm lens hasn't got much space in front of the lens if I'm correct?

Yeah, but the lens gets pretty long as you get close. So at least the camera is pretty far away

hope you didn't mind?

Of course not. (If I did, I wouldn't put them out on the internet ) Thanks for looking!

To be very honest Jon, it looks like the eye isn't really 100% sharp, but it could also look like it, because the rest looks pretty sharp to me

Well, the whole pic isn't *that* sharp, but the eye looks about the same to me as the rest of it. Did you try zooming in with the magnifying glass icon? Sometimes more detail appears when you do that


BTW, speaking of the eye, do you see the twin reflections from the twin flash? You'll get that effect, so if you hate it you might consider a ring instead.

Or perhaps do get the L-macro lens with IS...I'm not sure what to get...and what impact it will have on my shots

My IS macro came Friday. As much as I like it (so far), I would think that if you like to shoot moving bugs, a dedicated macro flash would have more impact than upgrading to the L macro from the non-L. I use the flash for pretty much all of my shots at about 1x or beyond. The standard flash was okay, but it got more difficult as I got closer

Right now, taking into consideration my
daughter's age, the impending newborn, available finances, long term
plans (bet'cha they change) and everyone's helpful comments, I think the
winner is the 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS with the 135 mm being the next
target to save for and the 24-105 mm after that.

[Y]

[Sheiky]

Thanks for replying Jon,


I didn't even know the zoom-function on Picasa, never used it [:P] And you're right about the increase of detail appearing [] I'll take my words back about the "unsharp" eyes...


I wanted to try out macro with tripod yesterday, but the wind was even too heavy for my flash to cover it, let alone a tripod could have handled it [A] But I figured out that when I know what I want, say mainly 1:1 photography, I put all my settings manual, even flash and it works pretty much like a charm. I'll keep experimenting for a bit the coming time. I wished I could rent a 65mm macro and flash anywhere near, but unfortunately that's not the case so I'll have to go with what I have. Often it is good to be mechanically challenged []

BTW, speaking of the eye, do you see the twin reflections from the twin flash? You'll get that effect, so if you hate it you might consider a ring instead.

I don't like any reflection of flash to be honest [:P] But the dedicated Canon ring-flash would be good as well? Or would it make my images flat?

I would think that if you like to shoot moving bugs, a dedicated macro flash would have more impact than upgrading to the L macro from the non-L

I'll keep that in mind, but I'm still not sure if I have any budget this summer, but I guess a twin-flash isn't really in the picture at the moment, because I'll probably go on holiday this year twice...and an expensive musical-event is upcoming...sigh setting priorities [A]


Thanks anyways! I'll try and post some macro-photos in the post your best section [Y]

[Jon Ruyle]

I don't like any reflection of flash to be honest [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img] But the dedicated Canon ring-flash would be good as well? Or would it make my images flat?

I've never owned a ring, so I can't really comment. I read extensively before getting the twin, and I mostly got it because it is so adjustable. I don't like the reflections either, but nor are they a show-stopper for me.

I'll try and post some macro-photos in the post your best section [img]/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

I'll look for them!

[scalesusa]

My 135mm L is almost as good as a macro, just do a 100% crop. This was taken before I got my 100mm L. The original was not really even a closeup, but the printed 100% crop is excellent.

[Jon Ruyle]

My 135mm L is almost as good as a macro, just do a 100% crop.

Now imagine a 100% crop using a macro


Beautiful shot, by the way. I've never been able to get a good pic of a bee in flight.

[scalesusa]

The original had quite a wide view of several flowers. I never saw the bee when taking the shot.

[Jon Ruyle]

I never saw the bee when taking the shot.

Don't be modest. Even if you didn't see the bee, your inner photographer must have.

[Sheiky]

I don't like any reflection of flash to be honest [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img] But the dedicated Canon ring-flash would be good as well? Or would it make my images flat?

I've never owned a ring, so I can't really comment. I read extensively before getting the twin, and I mostly got it because it is so adjustable. I don't like the reflections either, but nor are they a show-stopper for me.

Nah they aren't a show-stopper for me most of the time, but sometimes they are. Mostly due to shiny and/or very black creatures.


Reflection like this[:P]:





I know this shot could have been a lot nicer by using a tripod instead of a flash(that shield really reflects a lot!!), but...since it was crawling like an idiot because original they are underground animals and they don't seem to like the sun that much, I never have gotten a sharp shot with the use of a tripod. Better yet I had trouble enough getting a crawling image sharp.


Still remains a crappy picture, but in these cases I wished I had iso-3200 that looked the same like iso-100 [A]


Or was this perhaps solvable by using a polarizer? I'm not sure, I never tested if a polarizer works for decreasing flash reflections.

I'll try and post some macro-photos in the post your best section [img]/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

I'll look for them!

I'll do it today []