citizensmith Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I just sold my 100 f/2. The reason being, while I loved it on my Elan7e I find it a bit long now I'm using a RebelD. I also would likesome kind of Macro capability. I'm thinking of getting either the 85f/1.8 and something like extension tubes, or the 100 f/2.8 USM Macro. My problem with the first combination is its probably not the best wayto get macro. My problem with the second is effective 160 f/2.8 isn'texactly my ideal for a portrait lens. I guess what I'm after is an 85f/1.8 Macro. The lens will be 80% portrait, 20% macro use. I alsohave a 70-200 f/4 in the range. Any thoughts please on a good solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I have a 10D, and I bought the EF 100 f/2.8 macro about a year ago, hoping it would serve this portrait/macro dual purpose. While excellent for macro, I, too, found it too long for portrait use. I replaced it with the EF 50 f/2.5 compact macro, and just recently added the EF 85 f/1.8. This combination is $190 more expensive than your 100 f/2, and $110 more than the 100 f/2.8 macro, but it's a very sharp and powerful combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I use the Canon 100mm f/2.8 & a Canon 50mm 1.4 for my portraits<BR> and love it . However if only one lens, then go for a Canon 50mm<BR> f/2.5 macro it should satisfy both.<BR> The 50mm will be like a 80mm when you figure the 1.6 ratio<BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I'm with John. However, for 20% macro shots I think that extension rings or close-up filters (500D or 5T) will do quite nicely. Less convenient, yes but much cheaper. BTW, through in the 50/1.8 while we are getting cheap.... :-)))) Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eos 10 fan Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I shoot film. I have recently been using a 50/1.4 + Kenko tubes (12, 20 & 36mm) for shooting close-ups/macro. I like the tubes as they can be used on my other lenses as well and I get a fair degree of flexibility on how close I get to the subject - the downside is that changing/adding tubes in the field is a slowish process that can let dust into the body if not done carefully. I would suggest that you consider a 50mm other than the 50/Macro for two reasons: [1] f/2.5 may give too much DOF for portraits. [2] To get 1:1 you will have to buy the Life Size convertor, diopter or tubes anyway - the 50/2.5 only goes to 1:2 (half life size) on its own. A 50mm lens will give a 80mm FF field of view on a 1.6x crop body. -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Since the EF 50mm f/2.5 compact macro has a field of view equivalent to 80mm on a 1.6x crop body, and since the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro has an effective focal length of 70mm when used as a macro lens, wouldn't a subject fill more of the frame when using the 50mm macro at maximum magnification than it would with the 100mm macro on a full-frame body? Has anyone actually done the measurements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Thanks for the advice. Think I'll get an 85 for now. I'm also selling my 50 f/1.8 as I was planning on getting the f/1.4 version. I'll instead go for the f/2.5 Macro version as it sounds like a useful little lens. What's nice is the 100 f/2 went on ebay for just a little over the cost of the 85 with a hood, new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbizarro Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 For macro, you can use a high quality diopter on your 70-200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_peters1 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 since the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro has an effective focal length of 70mm when used as a macro lens ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_peters1 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nevermind - I found the answer - <br> <br> <i>this is because IF lenses shorten focal length to focus closer rather than move the entire lens group forward (as in the pre-USM 100 Macro).</i> from <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=45&sort=7&thecat=2">fredmiranda</a> <br> <br> That makes sense. But no - I don't think that means it fills the frame any less - 1:1 is a ratio of real size:on film, so the size of the subject in the frame won't be any different because of the focusing method. It's still 1:1 (actual size of subject) <br> <br> Now you've made me want to go out and rent a 100/2.8 Macro USM - I have the non USM version, and I'm curious how the perspective of the newer version at 1:1 compares to my lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 The Canon 500D only seems to come in 58mm and 72mm, and the 70-200 f/4 takes a 67mm. Any suggestions for a decent quality diopter that might be available at 67mm. Or, is it a case of get the 72mm, a step down ring, and loose the lens hood? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 "I don't think that means it fills the frame any less - 1:1 is a ratio of real size:on film, so the size of the subject in the frame won't be any different because of the focusing method. It's still 1:1 (actual size of subject)" That wasn't what I was asking. My question is: does a subject that fills the frame on a 1.6x crop factor digital and the 50mm f/2.5 macro at maximum magnification (due to the 80mm-equivalent field of view) fill less of the frame of a full-frame camera and the 100mm f/2.8 macro at maximum magnification (which is 70mm focal length)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_peters1 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 If the maximum ratio of a 50/2.5 is 1:2 then the only way it would fill the frame is if the sensor was half the size (each dimension) of a full frame - which would be 12x18 sensor. The 300D/10D sensor is 15.1 x 22.7 - so no, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_kujo_hurt Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 For Macro, you could use a 62mm Nikon 5T (+1.5 diopter) or 6T (+3 diopter) with a step down ring on the 70-200/4 and still be able to use the hood on the lens. Both of these diopters are excellent quality. Check the posts here on the 70-200/4 and you will find mention of it as well as photo samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now