Originally Posted by wickerprints
I was wondering about that. I still like the sound of EF f/xx L IS USM instead. []
I was wondering about that. I still like the sound of EF f/xx L IS USM instead. [
lol! I have absolutely no idea but sure looks/sounds impressive! I'm the newbie so heck I just learned what IS is not to long ago []
AF 180mm f/3.5 Di SP A/M FEC LD (IF) somewhat decoded...
From Bryan's review of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Lens, the breakdown is:
SP - Super Performance (Tamron's highest quality lens line)
AF - Autofocus
XR - Extra Refractive Glass (reduces lens size)
Di - Digitally Integrated Design (to reduce ghosting, flare, CA and peripheral light fall-off along with improved resolution)
LD - Low-Dispersion lens elements (to reduce chromatic aberration for sharper images)
Aspherical - contains aspherical elements (compensates for spherical
aberration and distortion, making for better performance with fewer
elements (and thus allowing for smaller, lighter lenses)
(IF) - Internal Focusing
[and not in Bryan's review]
FEC - Filter Effect Control function that enhances operational ease of Polarizing Filter use.
A/M - Autofocus & Manual focus (they may be referring to the clutch mechanism, or else a full time manual focus)
WoW!
Thanks for the breakdown, Sean. Now I won't have nightmares of Tamron's lens-naming system any more...[
Between the Canon and Tamron, get the Canon. IS makes a GINORMOUS difference and overall the canon has a better value. I have rented the 4/300 twice. It is not a perfect lens, but for the price you get a sharp, fast-focusing white L lens that is something of a hybrid between a super telephoto and a macro lens. aaaaahhhhh[]
And Di-II means that it can be only used with APS-C sensor cameras.
I do a lot of macro work, and recommend the 100/2.8 non-IS. It is (relatively) inexpensive, SHARP, and does almost everything that 100L IS can do. I've never missed IS with it, simply because with macro, it is often necessary to use small apertures to get adequate DOF. With small apertures, light becomes a problem quickly, especially with light loss at such close focusing distances. Thus it is often necessary to use flash or tripod. It is also somewhat difficult to handhold so close and keep your subject in focus, making a tripod even better. Flash also has the advantage of "freezing" your subject, so you can shoot with an active subject where IS would be worthless.
Short story: Spend less on the lens and spend more on lighting and a good tripod and (very) sturdy ballhead.
Also, about the telephotos, I recommend trying both the 300/4L and 100-400L before you buy. They are both excellent.
And Di-II means that it can be only used with APS-C sensor cameras.
I do a lot of macro work, and recommend the 100/2.8 non-IS. It is (relatively) inexpensive, SHARP, and does almost everything that 100L IS can do. I've never missed IS with it, simply because with macro, it is often necessary to use small apertures to get adequate DOF. With small apertures, light becomes a problem quickly, especially with light loss at such close focusing distances. Thus it is often necessary to use flash or tripod. It is also somewhat difficult to handhold so close and keep your subject in focus, making a tripod even better. Flash also has the advantage of "freezing" your subject, so you can shoot with an active subject where IS would be worthless.
Short story: Spend less on the lens and spend more on lighting and a good tripod and (very) sturdy ballhead.
Also, about the telephotos, I recommend trying both the 300/4L and 100-400L before you buy. They are both excellent.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
I agree 100%. IS on a macro is of limited use. I'm not planning to trade in my 100 f/2.8 non IS any time soon. I've never tested the 100-400L so I can't compare tomy 300 f/4L but suggest you rent both and see which one suits your own needs best. I fing lens choice is a very personal issue, we all have our own preferences.
Take a look at the "other" macro Sigma makes...the 150mm f/2.8 EX Macro. Check out the Sigma 150 Macro Club on Flickr and take a look at Bryan's own tests against the new Canon 100 2.8L Macro. The build quality is extremely good - I've had some great success with this lens both for macro and portrait.
I want to add a thought here.
When I use the EF 100 f2.8 USM for macro work, 99% of the time I use flash. #1 because cool bugs come out at night and #2 because I shoot at f8-f16 to get as much depth of field as possible. My flash fires at somewhere around 1/10,000 of a second so hand holding is never an issue. If I shoot macro innormaldaylight I use a tripod but not 1:1. You can't shoot 1:1 from a tripod unless the tripod has some sort of dove-tail base and screw that can move the camera forward and backward. When I shoot for 1:1 mag. I manually focus and rock until I get the focus I want. I can shoot 25-40 shots of the same subject and get 2-5 great keepers. If money were no issue I would love to own the new IS version. I do not think at 1:1 it would result in any more keepers. I would take advantage of the IS in indoor/static portrait like shotsand use it for artistic motion blurr effects. For me, I can't say it would benefit the way I do Macro.
I agree with ShutterbugJohan's recommendation.
Here's a Macroexample:
Canon EOS 5D, <span class="nowrap"]f/11 @ <span class="nowrap"]100 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/160, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 200 - Two Vivitar 285 in umbrellas triggered with Cactus V2s.
<span class="nowrap"]Notice that even at f11 on FF how quickly the slug gets out of focus. And this isn't even close to 1:1!
<span class="nowrap"]Here's a sorta portrait example @ f2.8 on APS-C:
<span class="nowrap"]
<span class="nowrap"]Canon EOS 40D, <span class="nowrap"]f/2.8 @ <span class="nowrap"]100 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/200, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 320
I have had this lens for about 3 years and have had no problems at all. Its a great piece of kit, very sharp. Be aware that the IS is the older version, giving about 2 stops. You might consider getting a 1.4x teleconverter with it if you need more reach. This will give you a 420mm f/5.6 for a little extra cost. IQ is still very good with the T/C attached.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
