ott_luuk

I wonder how big the circular image from the Sigma 8mm might be? It`s cool if the 1.6x crop gets you a full-frame image but might be weird if the image circle does not cover the corners of the frame. But it probably does, right?

If you already have the 50 f/1.8 you might find the 28-80 quite a bit softer. The 22-55 might be better or then again might not. At least the 22-55 will provide you with 22mm which is pretty damn wide for that price tag;)

As to the EF 50/2.5 again, I too have it and love it. The sharpness is excellent both for close-up and landscapes. It`s just that the working distances can get quite short, especially when using extension tubes to go beyond 1:2. There is a dedicated "Life-size converter", which turns this lens into roughly 70mm f/3.5 that can focus in the magnification range of 0.24x to 1:1 But tubes are cheaper.

 

Then again, the fact that I prefer the 50mm might come from m shooting style which usually includes using a tripod and cable release. I also do quite a bit of landscape stuff with it and I rarely desire extreme magnification ratios. Mostly I want a lot of DOF, stopping down to f/16 to 32. Static subjects most of the time.

 

In case you want to shoot bugs or prefer uniformly blurred backgrounds the ~100mm options mentioned here are much better for you.

I currently have the 50/2.5 macro and besides the 28/2.8 I too am planning to get the 135/2.8 SF. I thought I was making myself a real favour by getting these quite affordable, bright and lightweight primes to replace my low-end zooms. All of these use the AFD and that`s partly why the problem with the 28`s focusing problem seemed so bad to me. While I don`t care about the relatively slow focussing speed (as I prefer MF anyway) I do need reliability for my money..

 

Thanks for reassurance, anyway.

My ideas on this go on par with Joseph`s. You might want to look into the prime lens options. Both the 200/2.8 and 135/2 would be great choices but if your shooting style needs the zoom feature, I think skimping on the max. aperture is not a good idea, especially in nature photography. You save money now but moan every time you lose the last light. That combined with the price issue has made me start changing my low-end zooms to brighter primes ...I?m probably going to be on the market for a 135/2.8 SF pretty soon..

As to shipping damage, I dunno... I think that kind of a shock is barely possible cause it was tucked securely in its original package and there was no visible mark of damage. Also, the lens weighs only 185g and thus any impact shouldn?t affect it all that much... well anyway I?m keeping my fingers crossed that the replacement comes quickly and works OK;)

I have no personal experience with these lenses but there is one thing that you might consider. A prime in this range will almost certainly have less flare and light loss on the edges. (the latter is of lesser help to you because of the sensor crop)

I just received this lens and it turned out to have a flaw: the

focussing ring worked only in the 0.3 - 0.4 metres range and would get

stuck when tryed to focus further. The same thing with AF.

 

Definitely a "lemon". I returned it to the shop immediately. I liked

the overall build quality but it still makes me cautious that such a

problem occurred. Have you ever had something like that with this lens

or other older Canon lenses that use the AFD motor? Should I be

worried about this issue when the replacement arrives?

The EF 50/2.5 Compact macro is cheap and good quality but it only goes to 1:2 magnification without accessories. You probably want more working distance, too - and thus a longer lens. The EF 100/2.8 macro USM should be excellent but there are also cheaper options like the Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm. Both are very popular and have rather good reputation.

 

my 0.02$

The Life-size converter is dedicated to the 50/2.5 macro lens and is not supposed to work on other lenses. I was told that it wouldn?t fit on other lenses at all, it might be physically incompatible. Haven?t tryed myself. I do have the 50/2.5 but not the converter.

if cost really matters to you, you could just take the Sigma, wich I`ve heard to be OK and a Sigma TC to go with it. The combo is still cheaper than the Canon lens alone as far as I know

 

--Ott

If you can´t afford the 400mm super telephotos, don´t be too sad. Many of us can´t. So what I recommend you is to get a new 100-300 USM or the 100-300 f/5.6L (which is better but discontinued) if you can find a used one.

 

Both will work out for wildlife, you just have to improve your techniques for approaching the subject. Plus, if you stack the lens with a close-up lens, you can shoot macro, too - at least to some extent...

 

all the best

 

-ott