Thanks, Brendan! The 300mm with an extender is my final choice! Now I'm wondering if I should still get the 100mm f/2.8 L macro also if the 300mm can take some pretty nice macro shots ....decisions decisions!!! [*-)]
Thanks so much for your help .....Happy Holidays!
Denise
I have a 400mm f/5.6 Sigma, the 1:3 macro version of the lens, on a D100 body. It is amazing what a super telephoto can do when it comes to shooting pictures of small stuff because of the focal length. The neat thing is that you don't end up obscuring the natural lighting because you're not on top of the subject, so you can get a different look and aren't forced to use flash. Of course, you're close enough that you still can if you want. The f/5.6 makes for some nice bokeh because of the focal length, too.
I have just gotten a good tripod that is capable of holding this camera setup, so I will try to get some shots and show what I mean. Mostly have been handholding so far, and the results aren't necessarily post-worthy, but I can see what the combo is capable of.
Originally Posted by ddt0725
Great choice.
I think you should. If you put some extenders, TC, and/or close-up adapter on the 300mm, you can get some nice macro, but they wont be as nice as the 100mm.
Denise, I'v had my 100mm macro for 3 years and loved it untill I see Juza nature photography, he uses sigma 180mm macro, his work makes me think the focal length makes the difference( longer working distance which is better and better bokeh)canon has the 180mm macro too, right now i'm waiting the 180mm IS version coming out.
My second choice for a Macro was the Tamron AF 180mm f/3.5. I have seen beautiful photos posted online taken with this lens. I decided against it for the sole reason that it does not have IS but other than that it appears to be a wonderful lens and is $350 cheaper than the Canon 100mm.
Ok, I see, if you think IS is more important to you then go with the 100mm L IS., the reason I like the IS is when I use it handhold for non macro shorts.happy purchasing and happy holiday!
Unless you shoot bugs for a living the 100 macro will do you just as good. If you NEED to get close to an elusive butterfly, a 180 makes sense.
I think that the 100 is the right choice.
Juza is an amazing photographer. He could take those kinds of photos with a plastic bag over his lens. The 180 has its downsides, too.
The Canon 100 is as sharp, has much better AF, and is Canon's 3rd best lens for the money (after 85/1.8 and 70-200 f/4l usm).
Even though the 300mm takes great macros also, I think I will go with that and the 100mm for 1:1.
Your input has helped tremendously...thanks again!
Congratulations!
You will enjoy your new gear.
cheers!
brendan[H]
My goal...[] OK, some other nature, too. [:P]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote