Decided on Lens (70-200 f/2.8L IS)

All,

Sorry to start a new thread, but I thought I would let the IS vs non-IS to
continue for those interested.

Ok, so after careful consideration, I went ahead and ordered the 70-200
f/2.8 L IS. I based this decision on the following:

- IS will add a lot of benefit for me since I will shoot still subjects and
low-light
- I tend to shoot hand-held more (even though I bring a tri-pod from time to
time) and this will mean I dont _have_ to bring my tri-pod for "walk-around"
shooting
- I see this lens as one that will not have to be replaced 5-10 years from
now as there will be no reason to upgrade it even when I upgrade my body.

Thanks to all for their feedback. It really re-affirmed my inner thoughts on
this and also clarified some points.

Rgds
Musty.

Musty wrote:

Ok, so after careful consideration, I went ahead and ordered the 70-200
f/2.8 L IS. I based this decision on the following:

Damn! You coulda gotten a 100mm f/2.8 macro too!

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Musty wrote:

Ok, so after careful consideration, I went ahead and ordered the 70-200
f/2.8 L IS. I based this decision on the following:

Damn! You coulda gotten a 100mm f/2.8 macro too!


Alan, its not too late! This lens is on my list. For now, I'm going to go
out and shoot before I get the next lens. Next glass will be a wide zoom
(maybe 16-35 f/2.8), but for now, most of my shooting is close-ups and
isolating on details (for which the 100mm f/2.8 would also have worked for
some of the subject matter).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Musty wrote:

isolating on details (for which the 100mm f/2.8 would also have worked for
some of the subject matter).

You have no idea! The 100mm lens on a 35mm, esp. a macro, is a highly
verstaile lens.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Musty wrote:

isolating on details (for which the 100mm f/2.8 would also have worked
for
some of the subject matter).

You have no idea! The 100mm lens on a 35mm, esp. a macro, is a highly
verstaile lens.

Cheers,
Alan


Some people say that those macro lenses are "too" sharp. For example if you
use it for face portrait work, you have to spend more time in PS to remove
all the blemishes on the face :-)

But, yeah, I know what you mean, the 100mm f2.8 is more versatile than just
flowers/insect photography. The 70-200 ofcourse gives me more range, but a
few good primes (including a macro) are on the cards.

Now, since you brought up the macro: I am shooting with a 20D with the 1.6x
crop factor. The 100m f/2.8 gives a 1:1 ration on a 35mm film. Does this
mean that @ the minimum focusing distance, you get 1:1 on a 35mm frame (ie
fill up the frame)?? On a 1.6x FOVC, Does this mean that I can focus from
further away and still get the same size? I suppose this is why Canon have
released the following lens:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...ode lid=11156

(EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro == 96mm equiv). Note that this lens is EXACTLY the
same price as 100mm version, and yet you would think the optics do not need
to be as robust since the frame is smaller.

Musty wrote:


Some people say that those macro lenses are "too" sharp. For example if you
use it for face portrait work, you have to spend more time in PS to remove
all the blemishes on the face :-)


The issue of macro being too sharp for portraits is not really in how
sharp the subject is rendered but in how harsh the background out of
focus area appears, esp. highlights. The current lens with the best
reputation in this respect is the Tamron 90 f/2.8. Very sharp, good
smooth bokeh.

My Maxxum 100 f/2.8 is possibly the sharpest in this class (per various
sources including photodo), with perhaps one of the Leicas being
marginally sharper. Yet, the Maxxum has pretty good oof characterstics
as well vice the Nikon 105 and Canon 100 which are harsher in BG.

But, disregard all that. 100mm (+/-) is just a GREAT focal lenght for a
lot of uses on film or digital cameras.

For "ladies of a certain age" the Softar I used in difused lighting is
the savior. There is a used one on sale for CAD $200. I'm fidgeting.


But, yeah, I know what you mean, the 100mm f2.8 is more versatile than just
flowers/insect photography. The 70-200 ofcourse gives me more range, but a
few good primes (including a macro) are on the cards.

Now, since you brought up the macro: I am shooting with a 20D with the 1.6x
crop factor. The 100m f/2.8 gives a 1:1 ration on a 35mm film. Does this
mean that @ the minimum focusing distance, you get 1:1 on a 35mm frame (ie
fill up the frame)?? On a 1.6x FOVC, Does this mean that I can focus from
further away and still get the same size? I suppose this is why Canon have
released the following lens:

Very simply put: at 1:1, the in focus subject records the same size on
the sensor (film or digital) as its real size.

So a 5mm long grain of rice will

take up 5mm of length on a 36mm wide film frame; and it will
take up 5mm of length on a 24mm wide cropped sensor frame.

So if you print both the film version and the digital cropped version to
an 8x12 print, the rice grain will appear larger from the digital
version _on_the_print.

(EG: the film version is enlarged (12*25.4/36)= 8.5:1 and the
digital version is enlarged (12*25.4/24)= 12.7:1 )

(note I'm using a 1.5 crop above, but the point is that at 1:1 the image
on the sensor is the same dimension as the in focus subject).

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...ode lid=11156

(EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro == 96mm equiv). Note that this lens is EXACTLY the
same price as 100mm version, and yet you would think the optics do not need
to be as robust since the frame is smaller.

Yes. It's a great way to make money as Olympus have done in their E
series lenses.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
snip

Very simply put: at 1:1, the in focus subject records the same size on
the sensor (film or digital) as its real size.

So a 5mm long grain of rice will

take up 5mm of length on a 36mm wide film frame; and it will
take up 5mm of length on a 24mm wide cropped sensor frame.

So if you print both the film version and the digital cropped version to
an 8x12 print, the rice grain will appear larger from the digital
version _on_the_print.

(EG: the film version is enlarged (12*25.4/36)= 8.5:1 and the
digital version is enlarged (12*25.4/24)= 12.7:1 )

(note I'm using a 1.5 crop above, but the point is that at 1:1 the image
on the sensor is the same dimension as the in focus subject).

snip

Thanks for clearing that up Alan : It makes total sense.

"Musty" wrote in
:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...ilAct&fcategor
yid=155&modelid=11156

(EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro == 96mm equiv). Note that this lens is EXACTLY
the same price as 100mm version, and yet you would think the optics do
not need to be as robust since the frame is smaller.

Interesting. Given the choice between the new 60mm and the 100mm for the
same price, I would not hesitate to get the 100mm. This seems like a no
brainer to me, is there any good reason to go for the EF-S macro if it is
no cheaper?


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

In article ,
says...
Interesting. Given the choice between the new 60mm and the 100mm for the
same price, I would not hesitate to get the 100mm. This seems like a no
brainer to me, is there any good reason to go for the EF-S macro if it is
no cheaper?

I paid 435 euros for my EF-S 60mm, in a local shop in Italy.

According to this site,

http://shopde.tomshardware.com/searc...anon+macro+2.8
+usm&categoryId=

in Germany the 60mm goes from 384 to 492 euros, while the 100mm from 479
to 693 euros.

So the 60mm is 20-30% cheaper.

Advantages of the 60mm:
- price
- size (70mm vs. 120mm long - 40% less)
- weight (335g vs. 600g - 45% less)
- longer DOF at the same aperture / magnification
- easier to handeld

Advantages of the 100mm:
- EF mount
- longer working distance