eric_.

Gerry, I realise that of course. But due to the crop factor of the D60 the effective focal length is already long in case of the 100mm. The 180mm will even turn in an effective 290mm....yielding a DOF of nanometers...:-)

I am sorry, I should have added this question to my previous one. But

here goes:

 

I am about to get my first DSLR: the D60. I'd like to know if it

makes sense to get the Canon 180/3.5 macro (or the Sigma equivalent)

with the 1.6 crop factor of the D60? The DOF will be very small

already at 180 mm, especially at wider apertures (use of flash to

improve?), so is it better to get the 100mm instead (yielding an

effective focal length of 160)?

 

I will be shooting butterflies, other insects and small flowers.

 

Thanks.

Hello everyone,

 

Are there optical differences between the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

and the non-USM version? Is the AF in case of the USM version

noticeable faster and/or more accurate? Any other differences?

 

Thanks.

Hello everyone,

 

I am looking for a digital camera and I have the opportunity to buy a

second hand Nikon D1 with "low mileage" and in mint condition for the

same price as a used D100 in equal condition.

 

Of course the D1 is a pro camera, built accordingly, wherethe D100 is

more in the prosumer range. But the D100 has 6 megapixels to 2.6

megapixels for the D1. Is resolution the determining factor if you

had to choose? Can you please share your thoughts on this one?

 

What would you choose?

 

Thanks.

That is no dilemma to me: go for the EOS 30/33 (Elan 7/E) for the reasons mentioned above. Don't make the mistake to go for a set that is really poor in quality and ease of use.

Yakim,<br><br>

 

As far as I know you can also send cash to the following address:<br><br>

 

photo.net<br>

PO Box 545<br>

Carlisle MA 01741<br>

U.S.A.<br><br>

 

Good luck!

Harvey, <br><br>

Nope, just making sure I invested my money well...:-)

Do you feel that photo.net is valuable to you?<br>

Do you think that this website is a source of useful information?<br>

Do you value the opinion of other users and did you follow or give

advice that was appreciated?<br>

Did you get that very nice lens for a good price from a fellow

photo.netter?<br><br>

 

Can you answer one of these questions with "yes"? Then please

subscribe to photo.net! It is very easy and it is cheap. Yet, you'll

help keeping the site up and running and allow for necessary

investments.<br>

Maintaining a website with alot of traffic is more difficult than you

realise and requires alot of money. A small contribution is

appreciated!<br><br>

 

Just follow this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photonet-

subscriptions"><b>link</b></a>.<br><br>

 

Thanks.

Isaac,<br>

You gave a very nice example of macro possibilities with the 135/2L + 25mm combo. Do you have any exprience with a 200/2.8L + macro tube instead of the 135/2L?

Do you feel that photo.net is valuable to you?<br>

Do you think that this website is a source of useful information?<br>

Do you value the opinion of other users and did you follow or give

advice that was appreciated?<br>

Did you get that very nice lens for a good price from a fellow

photo.netter?<br>

<br>

Can you answer one of these questions with "yes"? Then please

subscribe to photo.net! It is very easy and it is cheap. Yet, you'll

help keeping the site up and running and allow for necessary

investments.<br>

Maintaining a website with alot of traffic is more difficult than you

realise and requires alot of money. A small contribution is

appreciated!<br><br>

Just follow this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photonet-

subscriptions"><b>link</b></a>.<br><br>

Thanks.

Thanks for all the responses. Very interesting points of view with nice examples. I was impressed by the EF 135/2L + EF 25mm combo. Adding the macro tube makes this a very versatile lens, great for portraits AND great for macro. But also the Sigma 180/3.5 macro seems like a very good choice if the focus is on macro.<br>

I haven't decided yet. Would like to see some Tamron 180/3.5 macro reviews...and prints!

<i>To the best of my knowledge only Canon and Sigma make a 180mm macro. Do you know otherwise?

</i><br><br>

Tamron also produces a <a href="http://www.tamron.com/35mm/di.htm">180mm macro lens</a>. This lens is brand new, release date is June 2003. Obviously it is very hard to have any review of its quality.

Hello all,<br><br>

I am considering two long focal length macro lenses: the Canon EF

180/3.5 and the Sigma 180/3.5. Does anyone know of an on line test

of both lenses, or even better do you have first hand experience

with both?<br>

How versatile are both lenses? Can they also be used as a normal

prime lens?<br>

Is the Canon worth three times the price of the Sigma lens?<br><br>

Thanks.

Just out of the hospital...<div></div>

noddy, I have seen some very nice pictures from you, but this isn't one of them. It is soft, tilted and I don't fancy the composition either. The fact that we see a princess doesn't improve the quality of the picture.

If you ask yourself this question than get an EOS 30 and be happy (with lots of cash to buy glass!).

Beau, I wonder who's more curious...:-)

OMG....

Patrick, you've been around the Leica forum for too long!..:-)

Thanks everyone!<br>

I will get an EOS 30 with BP-300, also based on your ideas and suggestions.

Gareth, I do not own this lens yet but I will. Being it part of a trade, I'll obtain the lens based on reputation, not on actual use.<br> In fact, I have no Canon gear at all. I do need a body with the lens though...:-)

Hello all,<br><br>

I need some advice wrt a suitable body for a 70-200/2.8L lens. Do I

need the pro EOS 1n / EOS 3 or will a EOS 30 do the job as well? Will

a EOS 30 be in good balance with this heavy lens? What, if any, are

the draw backs for choosing the EOS 30?<br>

Thanks.

Donald, have a look at <a href="http://www.konermann.net/steer.html"><b>Lutz'</b></a> website.

I'd consider a Leica IIIC or IIIF. They can be obtained for approximately US$ 250 and you can be sure that they'lll have an equal resale value after using it for some time.

Keith,

 

In my perception they are two quite different pictures. The first is very vivid due to the strong contrast and the hard colours. The contrast and the lightning makes it somewhat flat though. It renders alot of detail and I really like the explosion of colour. The second picture is more subtle and it gives you a better clue as to what is shown. The light is very different, coming from an angle this time where the first picture is evenly lit (fill in flash?).

I like them both, and I'd have a hard time too picking a favourite...