markboyer

<p>Thanks everyone. I don't have that many more specifics to offer. I went to Death Valley a few weeks back and wish I'd had a wide-angle when I was shooting the dunes. I'd probably use the lens during other trips around the southwest (Monument Valley, White Sands, etc.). However, I am not a rabid nature or landscape photographer and wouldn't use the lens all that frequently. My 24-105 and 70-200 would remain my primary lenses.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm looking for a recommendation for a wide-angle lens for the Canon 5D. Cost is always a consideration. I'm trying to get off cheap (but rarely succeed).<br>

Thanks,<br>

mb</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for the feedback and advice. I ended up going with the older version since I use the lens exclusively for macro shots. I found a used one less than a year old for $415.00; seemed like a good buy. But Phil is right about the circa $850.00 pricing for the new lens. If you can get it via Bing Shopping, you could get the price closer to $800.00.</p>

<p>Peter,<br>

Got it. Thanks. I should have known that. But then again I'd use the lens almost exclusively for macro shooting.<br>

-mark</p>

<p>Peter,<br>

Why is a lens hood required?<br>

-m</p>

<p>Canon recently supplanted its Canon EF 100mm macro USM lens with the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens. I'd like to know if the newer lens is worth twice the money. I'm interested primarily in image sharpness. I really don't care about the IS since I always use a macro lens on a tripod. But the newer lens is an L series. Are the images it produces materially sharper than those from the older lens? BTW, I'm shooting with a 5D M2.<br>

Thanks in advance for all opinions and advice.<br>

-mark</p>

<p>Always be suspicious of significantly discounted prices. You can always check these places on www.resellerratings.com. I bought my 5D MII from Adorama. </p>

<p>Alan,<br>

PhotoAcute is new to me. I downloaded the test version and played with it. It does seem to help with sharpness better than most utilities I'm aware of, but the resulting images are truly gigantic. I assume most folks crop them down. Or can you reduce them using the -9% method?</p>

<p>My thanks to everyone.</p>

<p>Gabriel,<br>

You continue to be right. I do everything you outline (tripod, remote release, raw, etc.) and have been for awhile now. I use a number of sharpening tools and utilities, and of late I have been oversharpening to try and get what I want, knowing it won't work. My lens question was my last shot before confronting the possibility of a 5D, which I really can't afford.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Gabriel,<br>

You're right again. I don't know what I was thinking except that a macro lens probably wasn't what I wanted since the subject-matter area was broader than what a macro conventionally is. Does that make sense? I am old and losing brain cells at a frightening pace. I did get the best results with that lens but there wasn't enough of what i wanted in the image.</p>

<p>Gabriel,<br>

You are undoubtedly right. I can say that user error isn't the issue here (though it usually is in most other aspects of my life). Part of the problem is that I've been shooting the saguaros from too far away because they are behind barbed wire fences. But I know I've got to get in closer (so I'll be buying work boots, gloves, and heavy-duty fence-climbing pants) so I can get exactly what I want in the original image and thus won't have to crop. But my expert advisor also thinks a prime lens may help as well.</p>

<p>Even the 60mm f/2.8 isn't doing it for me once I enlarge the TIFF file.</p>

<p>I guess I should have been more specific. I'm looking to get better resolution primarily on close-in shots (but not macros). I've been shooting the skeletons of dead Saguaro cactuses. I want to crop those images from 20 to 40% and then enlarge the final image to approximately a 24" to 28" width for printing. I'm not getting the resolution I need with the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L USM or Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II.

<table border="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

<p>If price was no object, what is the absolute best straight 50mm lens for an XTi? It doesn't have to be by Canon. Ev

en a lens that requires an adapter is acceptable. Thanks for all input.</p>

<

<p><b>Decision.</b></p>I went for the new one, figuring the price difference of only $100 made the gamble not worthwhile. Thanks again to everyone for the advice.</p>

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'll see if I feel like gambling over the next few hours.

There's a recent Canon lens I want. Adorama sells it for about $400. They have a

factory-refurbished one for $300 with a 90-day warranty. What do you think?

to everyone. I have learned much and am probably further from a decision then before . . . though in a good way.

I meant 50mm of course.

<p>I'm still a relative beginner, so my question may strike some as silly but

I'm still curious. I have a Canon EF 500mm f/2.8 II lens that I use frequently

and really like. Recently I've been reading strong recommendations for the Sigma

30/1.4 lens. Is the Sigma different enough in what it can do to justify my

buying it while still keeping the Canon?</p><p>A second question. What do you

guys recommend for a good close-up lens? And a for a good macro lens? Without

breaking the bank. A while ago I bought the Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 macro lens, but

you get what you pay for. I'd like to move up to something that can produce more

sharply focused results.</p><p></p><p>Thanks.</p>

Thanks for the support. I feel better.

<p>Thanks for the quick response.</p><p><b>Bruce.</b> Your question is fair. In fact I did know what the lens is supposed to do. I was simply a tad confused by the rotation-to-vary-effect feature. I read some stuff about the lens and spoke to some knowledgeable people at work . . . but it was at work. I just assumed that specific instructions would come with the lens.</p>

I just bought a Hoya CIR-Polarizing filter to go with my Canon EF 70-200 mm.

I've never used a filter before, and there are no directions. My question is: do

I just put the filter on and leave it? Or do I need to rotate once it's one for

various effects?

 

Thanks,

Mark

Thanks. I'm gonna check it now.