Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Macro lens
Feb 17, 2012 23:19:41   #
crazy4thread Loc: Minnesota
 
I am wondering what anyones thoughts are on the Canon 100mm f2.8 verses the same with USM? or IS? Thanks

| Reply
Feb 18, 2012 02:00:08   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
Read this thread:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-24911-1.html

| Reply
Feb 18, 2012 11:52:02   #
RocketScientist Loc: Littleton, Colorado
 
wildflower62 wrote:
I am wondering what anyones thoughts are on the Canon 100mm f2.8 verses the same with USM? or IS? Thanks


When you go with IS on that series, you are dropping another $300 - $400 on the lens because it is Canon L series glass. This was introduced in 2009 and would have the latest and greatest Canon technology. Very nice stuff there and worth it if you can afford it.

The USM only version is not L series, but is a fine lens introduced in 2000. USM allows a faster and quieter AutoFocus. So far in my experiments with macro, I have been having better luck using manual focus. This can be found on CraigsList in the $400 - $450 range.

The version without USM or IS was introduced in 1990. I am a sucker for the old glass. This can be found on CraigsList in the $375 - $450 range. (I have had some great luck with my 1989 version of the "Nifty Fifty" and 28mm 2.8.)

IS will be more convenient when not using a tripod. Turn the feature off when tripod mounted.

No IS means you need to have a steady hand and good stance when shooting. Practicing stance and steadiness builds character. Lord knows, us Canon shooters need more character.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2012 01:21:35   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
RocketScientist wrote:
wildflower62 wrote:
I am wondering what anyones thoughts are on the Canon 100mm f2.8 verses the same with USM? or IS? Thanks


When you go with IS on that series, you are dropping another $300 - $400 on the lens because it is Canon L series glass. This was introduced in 2009 and would have the latest and greatest Canon technology. Very nice stuff there and worth it if you can afford it.

The USM only version is not L series, but is a fine lens introduced in 2000. USM allows a faster and quieter AutoFocus. So far in my experiments with macro, I have been having better luck using manual focus. This can be found on CraigsList in the $400 - $450 range.

The version without USM or IS was introduced in 1990. I am a sucker for the old glass. This can be found on CraigsList in the $375 - $450 range. (I have had some great luck with my 1989 version of the "Nifty Fifty" and 28mm 2.8.)

IS will be more convenient when not using a tripod. Turn the feature off when tripod mounted.

No IS means you need to have a steady hand and good stance when shooting. Practicing stance and steadiness builds character. Lord knows, us Canon shooters need more character.
quote=wildflower62 I am wondering what anyones th... (show quote)


I have the Nikkor VR 105 2.8 Macro-- and manual focus almost 100% of the time when in the closeup to macro range

| Reply
Feb 19, 2012 01:45:32   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
Stumptowner wrote:
I have the Nikkor VR 105 2.8 Macro-- and manual focus almost 100% of the time when in the closeup to macro range
I also have the Nikkor 105G, but my eyes are no longer trustworthy for manual focus. I successfully rely on A-F for macro.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2012 11:33:26   #
crazy4thread Loc: Minnesota
 
thanks for your information everyone :) I went to a small camera shop yesterday, looking for a used Canon 100mm f2.8. I was a little disappointed in how hard they tried to talk me into "anything" Tamron. I have read some reviews on both and really think I would rather get Canon, sounds like they produce a crisper photo. What do you all know about this? And I realize, as was pointed out to me several times yesterday, I will have to pay more for the Canon name, but i am not after that I am after which will give crisper photos. Thanks again


wildflower62 wrote:
I am wondering what anyones thoughts are on the Canon 100mm f2.8 verses the same with USM? or IS? Thanks

| Reply
Feb 19, 2012 12:07:58   #
hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama
 
Go here and look at some of the results from the Tamron I do not see much way it could be very much sharper I have the 70-200mm F2.8 Tamron and it is very sharp.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron90mmmacro/

| Reply
Feb 19, 2012 12:12:09   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
If you have the budget, you cannot go wrong with a Canon macro. I have nothing against Tamron or Sigma, but most serious macro-photographers own lenses made by their camera manufacturer.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2012 14:03:46   #
crazy4thread Loc: Minnesota
 
thanks for the link, nice photos

hangman45 wrote:
Go here and look at some of the results from the Tamron I do not see much way it could be very much sharper I have the 70-200mm F2.8 Tamron and it is very sharp.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron90mmmacro/

| Reply
Feb 19, 2012 14:04:16   #
crazy4thread Loc: Minnesota
 
Thanks for the input, i am going to stick with my instinct and save for a Canon


Nikonian72 wrote:
If you have the budget, you cannot go wrong with a Canon macro. I have nothing against Tamron or Sigma, but most serious macro-photographers own lenses made by their camera manufacturer.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2012 15:05:51   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
hangman45 wrote:
Go here and look at some of the results from the Tamron I do not see much way it could be very much sharper I have the 70-200mm F2.8 Tamron and it is very sharp.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron90mmmacro/


And slrgear.com would confirm this. BTW, the lens is roughly 1/3 of the price for a Nikkor of the type. The difference in these lenses is the VR (& IS) and the build quality. These are not disputable. If you are gentle with your equipment and do not need VR (or IS), then the Tamron is fine. As a Nikon owner, I would probably opt for the Tamron ($650 vs $2200)

| Reply
Feb 21, 2012 14:56:56   #
English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL
 
wildflower62 wrote:
.../... I was a little disappointed in how hard they tried to talk me into "anything" Tamron. .../...
Stop being nice with the sale folks. Tell them what you want. If they do not answer tells them off through their managers. You are a client, YOU ARE RIGHT, end of story.

| Reply
Feb 21, 2012 20:38:16   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
English_Wolf wrote:
wildflower62 wrote:
.../... I was a little disappointed in how hard they tried to talk me into "anything" Tamron. .../...
Stop being nice with the sale folks. Tell them what you want. If they do not answer tells them off through their managers. You are a client, YOU ARE RIGHT, end of story.


Not only that, if you research what you want, they should not dissuade you. They are sales people, first; and photographers, second (or third, or....). More than a few are not as knowledgeable as they think they are.... JMHO.

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2020 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.