Jump to content

JohnMWright

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,377

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by JohnMWright

    EF-S 15-85 as walkabout zoom

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Mark,</p>

    <p>I used the 15-85 on my 50D as a walkaround/landscape lens and I loved it. It is a great general use range. Very sharp, contrasty, decent bokeh (neutral at the least). The IS worked well (I barely noticed it kick in, too), and I had no zoom creep. The speed was the only issue, so I complemented it with a 50mm for indoor use.</p>

    <p>I was also influenced by reading Peter Kun Frary's review you linked, and found he was dead-on.</p>

    <p>As an aside, I bought a Vello lens hood for it, and had to do a bit of trimming/filing to get it to fit reversed. Slight manufacturing defect that has hopefully been fixed by now, though fixing it myself was easy enough.</p>

    <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16663117<br>

    http://www.photo.net/photo/16663113</p>

    <p> </p>

    EF-S 15-85 for occasional macro or acquire 100/2.8?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Sarah and others have good advice here. I overlooked the "occasional" part. ;-) I love doing closeups, so a dedicated macro made a lot of sense for me. But I started doing closeups as a starving student and tried all the cheap options first.</p>

    <p>I'll give a summary of some options and my thoughts on them.</p>

    <p>I tried cheap diopters (aka close up lens) first, because my dad had a cheap set of Vivitar diopters that he never used. Image quality suffered greatly. I eventually got high quality 2-element diopters from Nikon and Canon. These are pretty good. If you start with a good lens, the images are capable of professional results. They are great for zooms because you don't have to refocus when you zoom. Also you don't lose light like you do with extenders. The longer the focal length of the lens, the more magnification you get.</p>

    <p>Extenders can yield better image quality because you are not adding more glass/air interfaces. They are less convenient to use than diopters because of the mounting method. They are also best with primes because zooms change focus (greatly) when you zoom while a tube is in place. With these, I agree you should use some with electric contacts to allow aperture contol. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the more magnification you get from a given tube. A 50mm lens with a 50mm tube gives 1x life size.</p>

    <p>Reverse mounts let you turn a lens backwards. This essentially is the same as a diopter, but if you start with a good lens, you get a good diopter. The wider the lens, the greater the magnification when you reverse it. You gain a lot of magnification, but lose working distance. Use a manual aperture lens with this technique so you can control the aperture.</p>

    <p>You can also reverse a lens in front of another lens. Same idea, but use the lens mounted on the camera to control the aperture, and leave the reversed lens wide open. Magnification is the ratio of the focal lengths. So a 50mm in front of a 200mm is 4x life size.</p>

    <p>Of course once I had tried all of these options, I still eventually saved up for a real macro lens. </p>

    <p>When I don't expect to use the macro, I still bring my Canon 500D closeup lens (diopter) along. For the occasional use, I think it is the best option. YMMV.</p>

    <p>Getting a wee bit more extreme, which probably doesn't interest the OP per se, but I also eventually found a bellows micro. A Minolta 12.5mm f/2. I adapted it to Canon via Minolta-M42 and M42-EOS adapters. I have an old Minolta bellows I can use as well. With this + tubes, I can get past 15x but it gets very dark and very hard to focus, and I don't use it much. I estimate that the minimum magnification I get with this is about 4x. And it is already hard to use at 4x. The working distance is quite short.</p>

    <p>Eventually, I plan to get the Canon MP-E for more extreme closeups (from 1x to 5x). This is for image quality and convenience.</p>

    EF-S 15-85 for occasional macro or acquire 100/2.8?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>The 15-85 is a great lens, very versatile for things that don't require wide apertures, and pretty sharp for closeups, but there is no way in my mind that it would replace my 100mm macro for closeups. Before I went FF, I carried the 15-85 + 100 macro as a general walk-in-the-woods setup.</p>

    <p>15-85:<br>

    Pretty close to minimum focus I think: http://www.photo.net/photo/16663113<br>

    http://www.photo.net/photo/16663117</p>

    <p> </p>

    Is EF 50 /1.4 performing better on 5D mkIII compared to 5D mkII?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>I never had the 5D2, but I had the 50D which has a similar AF system to the 5D2. My 50mm f/1.4 performs much better on the 5D3. I missed tons of shots on the 50D, usually in servo mode, but most are dead-on with the 5D3. It's fast and accurate now. Night and day really. Based on that, and the fact that Canon puts the 50mm f/1.4 in the 5D3 and 1DX "A" list for focusing, I think the bottleneck is the AF system.</p>

     

    Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro vs. Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Macro Recommendation

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>I'm glad my failed experiment helped someone. I pre-ordered the 24-70 f/4L based on the MTF, expecting it would make an excellent landscape and family-outing lens. My copy just wasn't sharp and it was hard to focus even with live view at 10x (I never had that problem before, it was such a strange sensation). For reference, my 50D with 15-85 was much better than my copy of the 24-70 f/4L on a 5D3. I was really put off, returned the f/4, and ordered the more expensive zoom instead. I couldn't be happier with the mark II. </p>

    <p>I have a 100mm macro (USM) so I didn't care about the macro mode of the zoom, but of course had to try it while I had it. As Robin said, with a fat lens and short working distance, it just isn't very practical. I really appreciate the slimmer 58mm filter of the 100 macro. </p>

    <p>I think for wedding use, where the only real "macro" would be of the rings, a closeup lens (diopter) would be a handy option. That is what how my wedding photographer handled our ring shot. In fact, he just held it over the lens. The setup was mere seconds.</p>

    Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro vs. Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Macro Recommendation

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>I had the 24-70 f/4L IS very briefly (it had problems, and I decided to go with the 24-70 f/2.8L II), and the working distance at the macro setting is way too short to be useful. The lens shades the subject. Even with flash, it comes at such a strong angle that you have very little control in lighting. </p>

    <p>The options mentioned by others are better choices.</p>

    70-200mm f/4 L IS USM vs. EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro for portraiture

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>I have the non-IS 100 USM macro. It is a great portrait lens as well as macro. Something to note though, the focusing is slow and often hunts when the focus limiter is off (when it can go the full focus range). With the focus limiter on (about 1/3rd life size to infinity), it focuses much faster and more accurately... in one shot AF mode. It can't keep up with action. The IS version may be improved but it too has a focus limiter and that's a feature to keep in mind. </p>

    <p>With really good ISO handling, I don't really need IS. I can keep the shutter speeds up and still get good quality portraits with just window light indoors. Since you plan to get a 6D, that's something to keep in mind. </p>

    <p>Neither lens on your list is a bad choice. Do you want the versatility of the zoom or the macro more first? If you can't decide, flip a coin.</p>

    <p> </p>

    70-200mm f/4 L IS USM vs. EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro for portraiture

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>If you are indoors, the 100mm may be a bit long on a crop unless you like tightly framed faces. Depends on the space you have available. I found the 70-200 range more versatile on a crop indoors.</p>

    <p>As others have pointed out, you can get more lenses for the money if you give up IS. You could get the 70-200 f/2.8L without IS for the same money as the f/4 with IS. You know your needs better than anyone of course. </p>

    Who needs extensive multi-point AF and how to manage?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>I set the multi-controller (joystick) to directly select the AF point. My thumb can reach down quickly and adjust it as needed. I tend to use zone AF or one of the AF point expansion modes (I haven't seen much difference between the two), but sometimes a single point or even spot AF are helpful. It just depends on the subject. </p>

    <p>The cases depend on your subject motion. I'd experiment with them. I use case 2 with shutter priority for animals. I haven't settled 100% on a case for tracking my kids, but I'm using case 5 at the moment with decent results. Kids on a swing change direction too fast for case 2 to handle.</p>

    <p>As Keith mentioned, having the orientation linked point is very nice. Yes, the 5D3 has that feature.</p>

    <p>To switch between these things quickly, I use the custom modes. I also have the custom modes set to remember setting changes I make while in that mode.</p>

    <p>Sometimes you just have to anticipate what you need, which isn't always easy.</p>

    Is their a good alternative to Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM Lens

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Hand-held closeups without a tripod are tough without a fast shutter speed, which most likely means using higher ISOs. Even with a good enough shutter speed, your body will sway a bit and with thin depth of field, you'll find many out of focus. So IS is a good idea in this case. Even with a tripod, a light breeze with make the flowers jump around in your viewfinder. Patience, practice, and many attempts will be required.</p>

    <p>I've found that I need a stop or two faster than the 1/FL rule to get truly sharp images, hand-held. Steadier people might be able to go slower than that.</p>

    <p>I have not heard of a bad macro lens in terms of image quality. Honestly. I have personal experience with two, one of which is the non-IS Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. It is outstanding, I still have it, and have no plans to replace it. </p>

×
×
  • Create New...