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[]
Originally Posted by ddt0725
Yep, I thought I had a tripod, too, but after I picked up my new tripod, I realized I never had a tripod before! My previous Sunpak 7500 isn't even in the same league as the new Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 I just received from myself for Christmas. []You owe it to yourself to look into a real tripod. Only now do I see what I had been missing before. This particular one has a fantastic feature that is tailor-made for macro work, too, with the Q90 rapid column that can be locked in parallel to the ground. Very cool.
I will second that. I kicked myself in the face a few times before I mustered the courage to blow $550 on a tripod. I had a cheapo promaster tripod from (?, 5) years ago. Deciding that "6X carbon fiber" tripods like the ones in bryans reviews were overkill, I bought a gitzo basalt tripod with a weight rating of like 30 pounds. Never blown $550 better.
I will second that. I kicked myself in the face a few times before I mustered the courage to blow $550 on a tripod. I had a cheapo promaster tripod from (?, 5) years ago. Deciding that "6X carbon fiber" tripods like the ones in bryans reviews were overkill, I bought a gitzo basalt tripod with a weight rating of like 30 pounds. Never blown $550 better.
Definitely get comfortable with that tripod! Or, consider a flash (Canon twin light, or a Speedlite with a bracket + off-shoe cord). I actually just got myEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM - this is the first shot I took, part of an arrangement sitting on the dining table. Natural window light, early afternoon in New England. This is at f/11, and you'll need an aperture in the f/8-11 range for decent DOF when shooting macro. Why do I recommend a tripod? This exposure was 10 seconds (at ISO 200, but even going to 1600 would mean a 1.25 second exposure - way too long even with IS). But, for outdoor shooting in daylight, IS does make handheld macro shots feasible. All around, so far, I love this lens. [
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/1st_2D00_Macro.jpg[/img]
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote