I am wondering what anyones thoughts are on the Canon 100mm f2.8 verses the same with USM? or IS? Thanks
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.
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
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.
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
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.
thanks for the link, nice photos
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.
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)
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.
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.