Which lense Rebel users...

[TheSonofDarwin]

Hey guys,
Which lense do ya think I should get. The Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM or the Canon EF 100mm F2.8 macro? I don't know if I should spend the extra $200 for the 100mm. Or maybe the Sigma 70-300 DL F4-5.6 (same price as the 50mm above). What do ya think?

[CDM]

We have some discussion in this thread:
http://aquatic-photography.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1737
I got a Sigma 70-300 mm DL F4-5.6 (macro?), which I found is ok with Rebel. Some Sigma lens do have wrong focus issue with Rebel. I am planning to get Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro which got many positive comments before (by Rebel users).

[meriadoc]

the difference between the 50mm 1.4 and the 1.8 is marginal, alot of people opt toward the 1.8 because there seems to be slightly better image quality between the two.

and the 50 1.8 can be had for under $100 bucks :)

[TheSonofDarwin]

Alright.. after deciding what I'll be using the camera for mostly, I decided to go with the 50mm 1.8 (sacrificing the 100mm) and getting the 300mm f/4 IS USM and 1.4x telextender. Plus the 18-55m that comes with the kit I guess...

Thanks for the link to the other article - it had a link in there that really helped in deciding which lenses to get. Hopefully will have this by the end of the month.

[DarthV]

What do you want to use the lens for?? For aquarium photography, the canon 100mm macro, sigma 105mm macro or the tamron 90mm macro lenses would work very well! And all are quite sharp and could be used for portraits :) I'm not sure which macro lens I'll get... I might just get the canon... but I'd like to see what the reviews of the new sigma 150mm macro say about it.

The major difference between the 50mm f/1.8 and the 1.4 is the micro-USM motor in the 1.4 and probably slightly better bokkeh. But the 1.8 is CHEAP :)

[TheSonofDarwin]

Yea, it's quite a bit cheaper. Maybe for Christmas I'll ask for the 100mm macro and just hold off getting the 50mm, that way I won't be paying the extra money for it :cheesy:. Sounds better since I really want the 300mm lense and that baby isn't cheap at all. Since I want to do closeups and longdistance, I should have it covered with the 100mm macro and the 300mm (with 1.4x). Then I guess for whatever those two don't cover I'll have the 18-55mm that comes with it. We'll see... I may just end up buying the 100mm macro myself that way I can play with it sooner :lol:.

[meriadoc]

actually darth - the bokeh, color and contrast is a little better in the 1.8 than in the 1.4. but if you can get your hands on a 1.8 mk1 - you'll be all set - but they're harder to come by at a relatively cheap price.

[sugar]

actually darth - the bokeh, color and contrast is a little better in the 1.8 than in the 1.4. but if you can get your hands on a 1.8 mk1 - you'll be all set - but they're harder to come by at a relatively cheap price.

The bookeh better in the 50 1.8? The 1.8 has a very unpleasant bookeh because of its five blades in the diafragma. The 1.4 has a much smoother bookeh...
The 1.8 is a lot of value for money, but saying its better than the 1.4 seems a bit over the top. Most comparisons I saw were in favor of the 1.4

sugar

[meriadoc]

but have you seen the 1.8mk1? it has more blades than the mk 2 1.8 - which is alot nicer.

I've seen both, and I know alot of people that prefer the bokeh in the 1.8

all a matter of personal preference - but I don't see how, unless you can really justify it, to spend an additional $150 or so on a lens for what? 1/2 a stop of light if that?

Also - the 1.4 has more barrel distortion - a big enough reason for me not to buy it :). If i want distortion, i'll use my 12-24 thanks :)

Now, if they bought back the 1.0L - then we can talk

edit : and also - its REALLY hard to compare the two, especially in certain tests - ie at wide open as they're two different apertures - so naturally one is gonna give you less dof than the other wide open.

I prefer the 1.8 - I've tested both and the 1.4 seems just to be a waste of money for what you get. why else do you think alot of people go for the 1.8 instead? or, if people are so determined to spend that amount of money, the buy the 1.8 mk 1 instead? Color, quality and build. Not to mention the DOF scale that is missing on the mk2.

[TheSonofDarwin]

Is the MKI still made? Can't seem to find it anywhere, except for the 3 ebay turned up.

[meriadoc]

canon don't make the mk1 any more - you have to go to a second hand camera dealer, ebay or some other camera retailer. Its the only way to get that lens anymore.

[DarthV]

You see them sell on the fredmiranda.com forums from time to time.

[TheSonofDarwin]

That site is nice, however... it won't let me register. Everytime I try to register it says I've already been registered (won't even give me the chance to register under a different email...). So, I try to have the password (since afterall, I am registered :x) to my email address, but it comes back and says I'm not registered :evil:. I tried erasing cookies, using two different browsers (Firefox and IE), nothing works. So I get to be a passive spectator in that forum ;)

I may just get the MKII (if no MKI's come up) since I'd like to order within the next two weeks. Also finally decided on the other lense, the Canon 100-400mm L. Should be able to get some good shots both closeup and far away with those two lenses, so I should be covered until I become more addicted to photography (save me!). Since I'm just starting out I don't want to invest $3-7k on a lense ;)

[meriadoc]

for fish photography - i wouldn't bother with a 100-400 - the aperture is more important - and 4 really isn't enough light for aquatic photography - invest in a 100mm macro, or even a 180mm macro - the sigma ones are REALLY nice - much cheaper than L glass too.

its in the aperture - the smaller the number, the more light is allowed in - 4 really isn't enough for fish photography

[TheSonofDarwin]

Oh yea, the 100-400 isn't for the fish. I don't even think I could get far away from my tank to get a pic since the tanks are in my small room ;)

I really would like to get the 100mm macro, but I just don't think I could justify the money for one just to take pictures of my fish... for the 50mm I can justify spending ~$70 on a lense, but not hundreds of dollars for the 100mm++. Perhaps I'll see if I can pick up a used one on ebay. I still have time to look, about a week and a half away from ordering. It's just so hard to decide ;)

I'll check into the sigma macro lenses I suppose.

[meriadoc]

yeah, but the 100-400 is $1500
;)

[TheSonofDarwin]

Yea, but....
Ok, so you're right :P
I could probably sacrifice upto $200 for a fish lense... I guess I'll think about upgrading from the 50mm :)

[meriadoc]

believe me, even working in a camera store - really makes me think about justifying a lens.... i've got plenty of potential IF i buy one, BUT I really don't want to drop that amount - besides, i gotta save like mad to get a new puter!

[TheSonofDarwin]

Yea. I know I'll use use out of the zoom lense, but other than fish I don't think I'd use the macro. I figured the 50mm would be sufficient and would have other uses.

[meriadoc]

but you can get different lenses - for far less - trust me, that 100-400 is HEAVY. nice, but very heavy :) I've played with it, but i think i'm just gonna get something else by that time :)

and i'd rather a wider range zoom, rather than 100-400 - i'd still need something in the wider range - i've got a 12-24 - but still need something longer (but certainly not wider!)

[TheSonofDarwin]

Nod, I know. There was no other Canon lense with IS that I liked. I was just going to get the 400mmL, but I will be handholding most of the shots. The lense is like 3lbs (I think, if I remember right), so I'm sure my arms will hurt be the end of the day, but there is no other that offers that far of a zoom with IS for a better price.

[meriadoc]

yeah, but even so - IS will drain ya batteries in a flash, and really, unless you're intending to do low light shots, there's not much point even for IS - because its not that great when its turned on. Yeah, it does stabilize the image, but i'd still recommend a tripod or at least a monopod with a ball head for any lens - even with IS - it'll help - but a tripod or monopod would work a little better.

Or the alternative would be to get the 70-200 2.8 IS (waaayyy more expensive) and then get yourself a teleconverter (2x) for the 400mm shots. I know alot of people using that system - that have had great shots.

Or sigma have a 80-400mm OS (optical stabilization - just to confuse you even more) - that you may want to look at. Got a bit wider on the short end of the lens - and its a fraction of the price too :)

[DarthV]

Sigma has a new 150mm f/2.8 Macro lens out that might be worth looking at. The nice thing about the 90/100/105mm macro lenses is that they also can be used as sharp portait lenses.


That 400mm L lens will be very nice...going with something like the 70-200 + 2x tele might be more flexible? It's amazing at how quickly you get used to using a 3lb lens... I hardly notice the weight of my 300d + grip + sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

[TheSonofDarwin]

Well I had previously limited it down to either the canon 400mm L and buying a 1.4x telextender, or, for almost the same price, getting the 100-400mm L IS. The reason I was going for the zoom is that it'd offer me more variety - I wouldn't be stuck at 400. Also another reason I was going for the zoom was the IS (since I can't afford a 400mm IS at the moment). Since I don't plan on carrying a tripod around, I figured the 100-400 would serve me best, even though I could get longer distance with the 400mm L w/ 1.4x telextender. I went to many comparison sites and it showed that the zoom comes very very close to the quality of the prime, but it needs used primarily on a tripod. I don't plan on carrying a tripod with me when I goto zoos and animal sanctuaries with family. I want a quick pull out the camera and shoot. I could use a smaller distance then, you could say, but I also plan on using it for bird photography, so distance is a necessity.

[TheSonofDarwin]

Ok, since I'm positive the telephoto would get no use if not being handheld, I've decided to wait on that aspect.

I guess I'm going to get the canon 50mm macro, normal 50mm (I think...), the kit lense, and either the canon100mm or sigma 150mm macros.

[meriadoc]

180mm macro, not 150 :)

the 180 macro is nice - a friend of mine uses one - its a nice piece of gear :)

[DarthV]

meriadoc, Sigma has a new 150mm f/2.8 macro out on the market now :)

[meriadoc]

well, i didn't knwo that - i've been too busy thinking about other stuff to worry about new gear anyway

[sugar]

yeah, but even so - IS will drain ya batteries in a flash, and really, unless you're intending to do low light shots, there's not much point even for IS - because its not that great when its turned on. Yeah, it does stabilize the image, but i'd still recommend a tripod or at least a monopod with a ball head for any lens - even with IS - it'll help - but a tripod or monopod would work a little better.

Or the alternative would be to get the 70-200 2.8 IS (waaayyy more expensive) and then get yourself a teleconverter (2x) for the 400mm shots. I know alot of people using that system - that have had great shots.

a tripod would help, that's for sure, but with my 70-200 IS, I sometimes get away with 1/50 s @ 200 mm. A tripod would allow me to go even further, I know, but that tripod would weigh more than the lens. I really love this lens
It is outstanding for aquatic photography, also because of its decent magnification factor . Bookeh @ 200 mm f2.8 is simply amazing
The 100-400 is another story, because that IS system is a first generation IS an not so efficiënt. Combined with the slower aperture ...



Or sigma have a 80-400mm OS (optical stabilization - just to confuse you even more) - that you may want to look at. Got a bit wider on the short end of the lens - and its a fraction of the price too :)

Yup and it's quit good, the only problem is that it takes an age before it autofocusses, and that you could always get the occasional lemon (but the sames tory goes for Canon of course). One of the major advantages is that it's black, I know there are reasons for the white colour but it screams for attention I don't want.

sugar

[meriadoc]

but what makes you think that the current 100-400 use 1st generation IS systems? I would bet my ferret on it that it don't use 1st generation IS systems anymore - it wouldn't be feasible for canon to do that (and i'm also looking at my 200 page book on canon lenses ;)

But when you're also at higher focal lengths, the aperture doesn't have to be as fast - i mean, the 1200mm is something like 5.6, the 600mm is an f4. Just not needed. I know alot of wildlife shooters (arthur morris is a prime example) that use the 400 5.6 rather than the faster 400s because its not needed in most applications (especially when yer shooting to the sky in the case of birds) that and its lighter than you'd probably want to carry around on your shoulders for an entire day. I certainly wouldn't want to carry around an 2.8 400 mm considering its 11.8lbs. the 5.6 L in comparison is 2.8 lbs.

[sugar]

but what makes you think that the current 100-400 use 1st generation IS systems? I would bet my ferret on it that it don't use 1st generation IS systems anymore - it wouldn't be feasible for canon to do that (and i'm also looking at my 200 page book on canon lenses ;)


It is not the same IS system than the one on the 70-200: it lacks a.o. the possibility to be used on a tripod.


But when you're also at higher focal lengths, the aperture doesn't have to be as fast - i mean, the 1200mm is something like 5.6, the 600mm is an f4. Just not needed. I know alot of wildlife shooters (arthur morris is a prime example) that use the 400 5.6 rather than the faster 400s because its not needed in most applications (especially when yer shooting to the sky in the case of birds) that and its lighter than you'd probably want to carry around on your shoulders for an entire day. I certainly wouldn't want to carry around an 2.8 400 mm considering its 11.8lbs. the 5.6 L in comparison is 2.8 lbs.

I don't see Canon making a 1200 f 2.8 :-), It would have a front element of at least 50 mm... and I guess it would cost at least 500k. You would need a hummer just to transport it :-) It's not that it is not needed, but it gets to expensive. Anyway, DOF is already very small on these superteles.
And I do agree, superteles are unpractical. My back-pack weighs now almost 10kg... I would not even consider buying one. I'm waiting on a 400 of 500 f5.6 IS (or OS) because I don't need nor want another long zoom


sugar

[meriadoc]

but there are plenty of other lenses with IS that do not have the system on there for the tripod - in fact, most of the prime lenses have that option, and not that many of the zooms have the second generation IS system on there.

course, canon could always put on the second generation IS system on the 100-400 - but they probably don't put it on there because maybe the people would put that kind of lens on a tripod or monopod anyway even with IS on.