Veng Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 It's 400$ more. I've thought about it. I even held the IS today... Link to comment
uwwmatt Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 It's 400$ more. I've thought about it. I even held the IS today...Just buy it. Link to comment
uwwmatt Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 At least canon lenses hold value, unlike most consumer electronics. If you ended up needing money your loss wouldn't be that bad when you sold it. Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 You won't say that about us after you buy it Link to comment
Withers Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 $400 is a lot of ####ing money Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Best Buy has both Canon macro lenses cheaper than the go to BHPhotoVideo which is usually the best, $499, $899 respectively.... not bad for an amazing L lens. Link to comment
Veng Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Optically, it's the same glass between the two. The only difference is IS, which frankly is nice, but 400$ I'd be better off adding another lens to my collection. That being said, The refurb sale is back on again for 700$, but the IS is OOS. If it comes back into stock before my stuff gets here, I'll order one and return the other. Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 The L is so much more. And not the same. The regular has 8 groups & 12 elements The L has 12 groups & 15 elements There's your $ Link to comment
Withers Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 and yet if people posted a macro and didn't tell you which lens it came from, you would have no way of knowing which it was taken with. Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I'm more particular since I used both & know how they perform. The average noob can't tell the difference Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Lol don't get mad bro! I never said the non L was garbage, it's great! I LOVE the L tho Alot of my great shots came from the non L Link to comment
Withers Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 who is mad? you made a claim, I'm asking you to quantify it. I've been into macro photography for a while now and I couldn't tell you what lens any macro shot came from unless it was a MP-E 65. I couldn't even tell you if the shot came from a Canon, Nikon or Sigma lens. Of those shots above, I certainly couldn't tell you which came from the L lens just by looking at them. Link to comment
Veng Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I found your PotN thread where you asked this question by accident. Link to comment
shaner014 Posted April 3, 2013 Author Share Posted April 3, 2013 I found your PotN thread where you asked this question by accident. You pull the trigger yet? I'm loving the camera, I have a ton to learn still. I haven't even pointed it at the tank yet. Haha. Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 try using the aperture & shutter priority modes, those were the ones i found best. so once you set it to "av" for example, the turn of the wheel would adjust your setting... all in accordance with the set ISO ofcourse... Link to comment
TheWAND Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 who is mad? you made a claim, I'm asking you to quantify it. I've been into macro photography for a while now and I couldn't tell you what lens any macro shot came from unless it was a MP-E 65. I couldn't even tell you if the shot came from a Canon, Nikon or Sigma lens. Of those shots above, I certainly couldn't tell you which came from the L lens just by looking at them. Vic's right on this one. There really is no difference between the two lenses unless you really look at bokeh (like, really hard) at very low f stops. As far as IQ, the only thing that will stand out is a slightly less round bokeh ball due to the L lens' extra couple rounded aperture blades. Apart from that, sharpness and color rendition is almost identical. The extra elements have mostly to do with adding the IS element to the lens, and more groups to correct whatever the IS introduces. If I were you, especially if you have a tripod, I would go for the non IS version of the Canon macro. It's an incredible lens whichever way you put it, and considering your needs that the lens needs to fill, there is no reason to spend the extra $400. I spent the cash because there is no time to set up a tripod for ring shots during a wedding. If Canon made one, I would've bought a 50mm IS macro, but that is wishful thinking . That aside, the photo gear I buy takes my weddings and engagements as a priority, and tanks as an added bonus. You won't regret buying either lens, unless you are truly averse to setting up your tripod. The only difference I found (yes, I've used both) is that the IS will give me up to 1/30th second handheld shooting and the non IS will give me 1/60th handheld shooting. Both of these numbers are from decent shooting technique. Not the best, but adequate. Either way, and especially with aquarium macros, you will be shooting at lower shutter speeds than these when doing macros (to attain the correct depth of field). My average tank macro is f/ 11-22, regardless of the ISO I'm using, I'm shooting with a tripod for these. For long exposures, I turn off IS on my lens. TL;DR IS is mostly only useful for intermediate shutter speeds on the 100mm focal length (1/30-1/100s) Also, yes, I do own this lens. Risk by aboubakarephoto, on Flickr EDIT: Forgot to put in my final word. If that $400 is disposable income, I recommend that you spend that on a decent tripod and tripod head, rather than on the lens alone. $400 is a lot to spend on photography equipment, even for me, when I use my equipment to make a living. Spend it on the bang for the buck if you are a value kind of guy, or just use the money saved to enjoy the little things in life, like some good whiskey. Link to comment
Veng Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 You pull the trigger yet? I'm loving the camera, I have a ton to learn still. I haven't even pointed it at the tank yet. Haha.Yep, pulled the trigger, but went through B&H w/ free shipping and since the holidays, it won't ship out till today, probably won't get it till next week. Vic's right on this one. There really is no difference between the two lenses unless you really look at bokeh (like, really hard) at very low f stops. As far as IQ, the only thing that will stand out is a slightly less round bokeh ball due to the L lens' extra couple rounded aperture blades. Apart from that, sharpness and color rendition is almost identical. The extra elements have mostly to do with adding the IS element to the lens, and more groups to correct whatever the IS introduces. If I were you, especially if you have a tripod, I would go for the non IS version of the Canon macro. It's an incredible lens whichever way you put it, and considering your needs that the lens needs to fill, there is no reason to spend the extra $400. I spent the cash because there is no time to set up a tripod for ring shots during a wedding. If Canon made one, I would've bought a 50mm IS macro, but that is wishful thinking . That aside, the photo gear I buy takes my weddings and engagements as a priority, and tanks as an added bonus. You won't regret buying either lens, unless you are truly averse to setting up your tripod. The only difference I found (yes, I've used both) is that the IS will give me up to 1/30th second handheld shooting and the non IS will give me 1/60th handheld shooting. Both of these numbers are from decent shooting technique. Not the best, but adequate. Either way, and especially with aquarium macros, you will be shooting at lower shutter speeds than these when doing macros (to attain the correct depth of field). My average tank macro is f/ 11-22, regardless of the ISO I'm using, I'm shooting with a tripod for these. For long exposures, I turn off IS on my lens. TL;DR IS is mostly only useful for intermediate shutter speeds on the 100mm focal length (1/30-1/100s) Also, yes, I do own this lens. EDIT: Forgot to put in my final word. If that $400 is disposable income, I recommend that you spend that on a decent tripod and tripod head, rather than on the lens alone. $400 is a lot to spend on photography equipment, even for me, when I use my equipment to make a living. Spend it on the bang for the buck if you are a value kind of guy, or just use the money saved to enjoy the little things in life, like some good whiskey. Thanks for the reassurance of the decision I made. If it comes back in stock on refurb for only 200$ more before the other gets here, I'll probably nab it, but as is I'm not going to worry about it. I've only spent what I could afford on this stuff, and 400$ extra was just too much. I'd rather upgrade something else for that much cash. Or add a couple more dollars and get an ultra wide angle or something. Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Look into the Rokinon fisheye manual focus. Super super fun lens yet very affordable. Link to comment
shaner014 Posted April 6, 2013 Author Share Posted April 6, 2013 http://www.flickr.com/photos/90717616@N08/8625117360/'> http://www.flickr.com/photos/90717616@N08/8625117360/'>Harvey by http://www.flickr.com/people/90717616@N08/'>chubbyreefer, on Flickr Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 Good start!!! Next time try a single focus point and focus on the nose!!! Nice and milky tho! Love the bokeh Link to comment
shaner014 Posted April 6, 2013 Author Share Posted April 6, 2013 Good start!!! Next time try a single focus point and focus on the nose!!! Nice and milky tho! Love the bokeh This is what I was looking for. A tip or two! I am reading right now about focus points and BBF and auto vs manual, and all that jazz. How do I view the "exif" data for something? I think I accidentally lost it uploading to flickr. All I have is my pets at the moment. My tank is going through a growing pain so haven't even tried that yet. http://www.flickr.com/photos/90717616@N08/8625233218/'> http://www.flickr.com/photos/90717616@N08/8625233218/'>Kat by http://www.flickr.com/people/90717616@N08/'>chubbyreefer, on Flickr Link to comment
SouthFlorida_Tron Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 The idea is nice but appears a bit soft. Focus points should help sharpen the cat tremendously Link to comment
shaner014 Posted April 6, 2013 Author Share Posted April 6, 2013 Meaning choosing which point and placing it correctly? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.