joseph_gledhill

How well does the 100mm f2 with extension tubes work on a 1.6x crop body for

close up/macro? I don't want to buy the 100mm macro as I want something lighter

and smaller for occasional macro work. Is it sharp for this sort of work?

People say macro's are designed for optimum performance at close distances and

not for far. If this is the case, would a lens like the 100mm f/2 be "less

sharp" at close up distances because it is not a macro? If I add extension

tubes, do I then multiply its magnification by 1.6x for the crop effect? So

with the EF12 added, on FF, its magnification is 0.27-0.13. Times this by 1.6

becomes 0.43-0.20. Is this correct? If it is, then I can achieve 1x

magnification using both EF12&25. But how is the image quality? Many thanks.

I am taking up photography again for the first time in years and would like a

standard lens for portrait photography. I plan to buy the 40D. On my 1V, I

used to use the 100mm f/2. The 50mm is light, small and maybe more flexible for

all round general portraits. However, I am concerned that many users claim its

AF is not reliable and that it produces obvious geometric bokeh on occasions.

The 60mm has Internal focus, ring USM, close focussing as a bonus and a round

aperture that reports claim is very smooth. The 60, to me, sounds more reliable

and flexible. Users also claim that the 50mm is not sharp wider than f/2. So I

suppose my question is, at the same apertures, which one would be better for

general head/shoulders and loosely cropped portraits? Is there noticeable

difference in the bokeh? Thanks.

If I had a FF camera I would use the 85mm or 100mm for head and shoulder

portraits. However, on a 40D these two are too long for my liking. I am

thinking of either the 50mm 1.4 or the 60mm 2.8. Would one be recommended over

the other? I usually shoot f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6. Is the background blur on the

60 significantly better?

OK, I knew this would happen. I should have just said 30D. Forget the 40D - remember my question is about the 100mm on a 1.6x crop.

Anybody use the Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM on a crop body. What do you use it for

and how much do you like it. I had it mainly for portraits on my film camera

but now I am moving to a 40D its one of those lenses I still want even though

the focal length will not be very agreeable. Thanks.

Hello. Would the 60mm macro f/2.8 make a good portrait lens. I used to love

taking portraits on my 1V with the 100mm f/2 and am after an equivalent for a

1.6x crop. From what I can see, the 60mm will give a similar working distance,

is slightly smaller/lighter and focusses closer. I usually use f/2.8, 4 and

5.6. so going wider than 2.8 is not an issue. My only concern is that, although

it gives a similar working distance, it is still a 60mm lens so will it still

blur the background sufficiently for a head and shoulder shot. Maybe the more

depth of field will work in my favour as even using f/5.6 with my 100mm meant a

very shallow depth of field which sometimes was a problem. The 50mm maybe to

short and the 85mm too long (I had the 135mm f/2 for my 1V and the working

distance was too long for my liking). Many thanks.

I have the EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 100mmf/2 and EF 200mm f/2.8. I have only used FF

film slr's before but am waiting for the successor to the 30D before I move to

digital. I am looking at my possibilities for macro photography - preferably

nature. I do not want to buy the 100mm macro as, although a great lens, I must

travel as light and small as possible - it is too big for my liking. Besides,

it is occasional macro photography. I have narrowed it down to the following

and would be grateful for people's personal opinions for the best combo on a

1.6X body.

 

200mm with 12 and 25 extension tubes

100mm with 12 and 25 extension tubes

60mm EF-S 2.8 macro

 

Many thanks.

If I am taking a head and shoulders portrait using the 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm

f/2 at the same aperture, and filling exactly the same proportion of the frame,

which one will have more of an out of focus background? I know I would have to

get closer with the 50 and back up further with the 100 but would depth of field

be the same or would the 50 have more because it is wider? I don't know whether

to get a 50mm (or 60mm) on a 1.6x crop or the 85mm/100mm on FF. Do they compare

favourably or not. Many thanks.

How does the bokeh of the 100mm f/2 on FF compare to the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 on a

1.6X crop? I liked the 100mm length for portraits when I had a film body and am

looking for an equivalent length on a 1.6X body. The 60mm looks appealing

(light, small, sharp, easier to handhold) but I get the feeling there may be too

much depth of field (background in focus) for head and shoulder portraits. I

say this because I loved my 50mm on my film body but it was a bit too wide to

sufficiently blur backgrounds. The 85mm f/1.8 would give too long a working

distance for my liking - similar to my 135mm I had on FF. I suppose my dilemma

is 5D with 100mm f/2 or the 30D's sucessor with 60mm f/2.8. Many thanks.

Is the working distance of the 60mm on a 1.6x body more-or-less the same as the

100mm on a FF body? If it is, why do people complain about its short working

distance? I have heard no complaints about the 100mm on FF. The 60mm appeals

more to me - lighter, smaller, more handholdable, more depth of field at macro

shots... and doubles as a portrait lens too. What is the difference?

I intend to purchase a DSLR but do not need one at the moment - time is on my

side - but my decision will be between a 5D and the 30D replacement - whenever

that is. FF or crop factor is not a concern as I will choose the appropriate

lenses for my needs - 85mm f/1.8 and 300mm f/4 for 5D, 50mm f/1.4 and 200mm

f/2.8 for the 30D replacement. The latter does seem more appealing as I can

carry much lighter and smaller lenses around and it has a faster frame rate. My

question is, how would the auto focus and processor of the 30D's replacement

compare to the 5D's? Even though the 5D will be two years older would it still

be superior in these areas (faster) or would the modern technology of the 30D's

replacement mean there will be little difference? If the new replacement has,

as expected, 10+ MP then it seems very difficult to justify the the 5D over the

30D's replacement. Many thanks.

I would like to know people's experiences of using either the 85mm f/1.8 or

200mm f/2.8 for macro photography on a 1.6x body. I plan on using both EF12&25

extension tubes with these lenses as the magnification achievable is very

appealing. I would be photographing critters such as butterflies and frogs hand

held with the use of a bracket to hold a flash above the lens. The 85mm would

give me more magnification but the 200mm would allow a longer working distance.

Please do not suggest other lenses as these two lenses I use for portrait

photography and would like to utilise them for occasional macro photography.

Many thanks.

Hi. I am about to switch to a dslr from a FF film camera for the first time.

Ideally, I would like a 5D but it would hurt me to pay the going price for one.

So, my question is about the crop cameras (possibly a 30D). Do users find it

difficult/frustrating to look through its viewfinder compared to a FF

viewfinder? If there is a substantial difference then maybe I would feel

uncomfortable with this? Thanks.

Hi all. I am after an outdoor PRIME portrait lens for travel. On my film

camera, I used a 135mm lens but found this too long. If I had a full frame DSLR

I would go for something like the 100mm f/2 or 85mm f/1.8. However, both of

these will be too long on a 1.6X crop for my liking. That leaves me with the

50mm f/1.4. Again, on a FF camera, I would but this lens with one of the two

portrait lenses mentioned above. However, even though the "new 80mm focal

length" of the 50mm on a 1.6X sensor seems ok for portraits, I am a little

worried I will not be able to achieve sufficient background blur as seen on the

other two lenses. I shoot using an aperture of f/2.8 - f/5.6 and would not

really like to shoot the 50mm wider than f/2 - f/2.8 to maximise its sharpness

peak. I was thinking of purchasing the rumoured 40D out soon and maybe the EF-S

60mm f/2.8 macro but feel uncomfortable about buying into the EF-S lenses.

Should I just buy a 5D an solve the problem? Many thanks.

Hello. I want to move to a digital SLR from a 1V for the first time. I have

two options in mind: EOS 400D + EF-S 60mm f/2.8 or EOS 5D + EF 100mm f/2. I

shoot outdoor portrait photography. My main reason to go for the 400D was for

the 60mm lens - what a lens. It allows me to do macro and portraits. In

addition, it would hugely benefit my 300mm f/4 for wildlife. My concerns are

investing in an EF-S lens and having to look through a 1.6X viewfinder. The 5D

appeals for its almost 13MP, full frame and resemblence to a 1V. I don't know

if I would be frustrated with the handling and response of the 400D. For macro

work I would use extension tubes on the 100mm lens. If the 30D had more MP I

would maybe go with that. Would there be a difference in quality with 12x8

prints between the two? I keep thinking of two things: 1) if there is likely to

be a new release soon that may appeal more and OH MAN - WHAT 60MM LENS! Thanks.

Actually, I read that the 100mm is slightly better optically than the 85mm (photozone), better wide open and does not suffer from the purple fringing. Maybe people purchase the 85mm because the price saving is more significant than the extra 15mm. I am more concerned about having the correct focal length. Many thanks.

Has anybody used the Gitzo Basalt G1297 tripod? If so, what do you think of it?

The specifications seem to appeal to me. Light, not too big, half the price of

Carbon Fiber. I am thinking of pairing it with the Markins M10 ball head. My

only concern is that it may be a bit short fully extended but would not use it

fully extended much anyway. Can it fully open up and lie flat on the ground? I

read in the specifications that it can only open at two angles. Thanks.

Oh, by the way, I read something somewhere that Canon may be updating the EF 50mm 1.4 which would include a ring type USM. Maybe just a rumour but if it were true (and did not extend like the 85mm/100mm) it would be fantastic. Maybe it would effect sales of the 50mm f1.2 though. I think somebody said they enquired about replacing the micro USM in their lens and were told Canon have stopped production of their micro motors and all lenses using these will be replaced with the ring type. I have seen some retailers ofering reductions on this lens so don't know if it has any significance.

I really cannot decide between the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 or a combination of the

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 plus EF 100mm f/2. I have a 5D and shoot travel

portraiture. The 50 + 100 give me more flexibility for specialising in groups

and head/shoulder portraits. However, the 85mm's practicality really appeals

for being able to shoot head and full body portraits without having to change

lenses. In otherwords, it is a compromise of the other two focal lengths.

However, also in the back of my mine is the ability to use the other lenses for

other applications such as macro which I think the 100mm will be better at with

extension tubes on. Shall I travel with just one lens for ultimate freedom and

enjoyment or two lenses for flexibility. The money I save by buying just one

lens I would spend on a better tripod and head. Many thanks.

Hi there. Could anyone tell me whether it is possible to completely fold out

the legs of the Gitzo G1297 Basalt Tripod so that it lies flat on the ground for

low level shooting? Of course I know the centre post has to be removed and, if

it is possible, I will replace it with the Markins TB-20 base plate. Thanks all.

Hi. I am after a lightweight Carbon Fiber Gitzo tripod for my Canon 5D, 50 f/1.4

and 100 f/2. I am considering the 1157 + Markins Q3 head or 1257 + Markins M10

head. I want something lightweight for travel. I hardly ever use a tripod at

head height so this is of not much concern - only stability is. I also have a

300 f/4 but would just use the tripod as a "rest" for this lens while shooting

wildlife. In other words, I would not be using it for mirror lock up and long

exposures with this lens. My only concern with the 1157 is that it is too light

and my concern with the 1257 is that it is too long when folded. I know the

best is the 1325 but I don't want an overkill for my equipment and style of

shooting. Many thanks.

By Cibachrome hand printing.

I have just returned from my travels around Peru. I took with me a 1V, 35mm

f/1.4L, 135mm f/2L and a compact G6 just to "record memories". On one occasion,

I came accross a girl with a Llama and took a photo with my G6 as it was all I

had with me. On arrival back home, I got some 12"x8" prints made up. To my

astonishment, the G6 print absoloutely beats my transparency prints hands down -

and it was only a JPEG with no adjustments. The image on my computer looked

dull but when I received the print,the colours, contrast and sharpness just blew

my mind. I am now definetly selling my 1V for a digital slr and am even

thinking if I need these expensive lenses? I would rather travel lighter with a

50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 and enjoy myself more if there is no difference in the

quality of the final print. Oh, one further thing, I shoot full length and

head/shoulder portraits. Would people recommend carrying the 50mm and 100mm as

mentioned, or substitute the two for the 85mm f/1.8 as it can shoot both? The

two lenses are my ideal focal lengths to cover all situations but the 85mm means

I dont have to change lenses. Many thanks to all.

Hi all. I have a Gitzo G1235 tripod with an Arca Swiss B1 head. It is an

absoulutely fantastic set up that I love. However, I find that I never carry

it with me on my travels as it is too big and heavy. I am also concerned that

it is too overkill for my equipment - Canon EOS 5D, EF35mm f/1.4L, EF135mm

f/2L and EF400mm f/5.6L As a result, I am looking for a tripod that is

smaller and lighter and will tempt me to carry it more. When I can, I try to

use the tripod without extending any of the legs for maximum rigidity. In

other words, I use it to simply hold the camera still as height is not

important. The G1227 seems very similar to the G1325 so the next one down is

the G1127. It seems light enough to carry yet big enough to still be a "real

tripod". I was thinking of a Kirk BH-3 head or, dare I say it, a Manfrotto

compact ball head. Yes, I know it is not as good but maybe it is all I need

and the combined weight is less than half of the G1325 plus B1. Many thanks.

Is there a noticable difference in colour, contrast and sharpness between the

EF100mm f/2 USM and the EF135mm f/2L USM? I have recently returned from a

trip to Peru where I photographed many portraits. I found the 135mm too long

for this application and prefer the 100mm focal length. However, if using the

100mm means loosing the "L" qualities that gives photos a "pop" then maybe I

am better off "adapting" to the 135mm focal length. I have also heard the

100mm produces rather "dark" or "muddy" images incomparison with the 85L or

135L. Is this the case? The 100mm appeals as it is much lighter than the

135mm for travel. I was thinking of using the 85L to replace both 50mm and

135mm for general travel portraiture but the focal length is, for me, neither

here nor there - too long for groups, too short for head and shoulders.

Besides, when I saw the weight of that thing, my eyes almost hit 180 on my

dartboard (could not get 3 trebble 20s - only got 2 eyes!) - it?s almost the

weight of the 400mm f/5.6L. Wouldn?t want to fall overboard with that thing

round my neck! Thanks.