I have just gone Canon from Olympus and have purchased a 20D as an interim camera and later back-up to a 40D ( if I like the improvements ).
I want one lense for each of the following types of shooting (max. $2000ish each). Less is better but I want good 'tack sharp lenses'.
1) I am wanting to shoot macro. Flowers etc. I want to be able to shoot a bouquet or very close-up. Suggestions ? (100... 180)
2) I want to shoot wild life more. Birds, small animals etc. definitely pan shots. (100-400?)
I would appreciate if any Canonites who have experiece with these types of shooting would give me a moment and make some suggestions and perhaps some pros and cons.
Thank you in advance for any help you may offer.
Rick T
For the macro, since budget does not seem to be too much of a concern, I would go for the 180 macro. Working distance with insects and other things that can escape should be a major consideration, plus background control will add to the appearance. If you plan to work heavily indoors, the 100 mm macro might be a consideration as a second macro if you use an APS sized sensor, as I have quite often found myself overlensed with the 180mm, but outdoors where I do most of my work, the 180.
For birds you always want more focal length, so you'll be looking at 400mm plus. The 100-400 seems to have a chequered reputation, there are reports of not so sharp samples around. A 400mm f5.6 or a 300mm f4IS with 1.4x are popular choices. The 300mm will do double duty as a butterfly lens with an extension tube or a close up diopter, Canon sells a 77mm dia 500D close up lens I believe, plus it has IS. The 180mm macro would be my choice, I use a 200mm FD macro lens and it works great. The extension tube and 1.4x will also do duty on the 180mm if you want to shoot really small stuff, or need working space.
Richard,
I just bought the 180mm macro to replace my 100mm and it is outstanding. The sharpness and color is tops. The added plus over the 100mm is you can use the teleconverters with the 180. The 1.4x really gives you some closeness.
Jack
Thanks for the feedback. I am pleased to say I am now the proud owner of a 180mm L series and I shot with it today. In a word. WOW !!! I love it. I'm tired though. Not as light as my last lense. I'm doing another thread for the telephoto later on. Let my bank accont breath.
Cheers
Rick T
On the 100-400L IS, it is my go-to wildlife/bird lens. It is quite sharp. Versatile, too, which is the only reason in my book to choose a zoom over a prime. Any of the L primes will be sharper wide open than the 100-400 is wide open at 400mm. Just the way it works. While the 100-400 is slow at max ap of f5.6, the IS helps quite a bit. I've shot indoor singing performances at 400mm and iso3200 with that lens at 1/40 sec and a monopod, and they are sweet and sharp. Of course, at slow shutter speeds, timing and technique are everything. The 100-400 has gotten mixed reviews on some of the other boards frequented by generally less experienced photographers than what we have on NPN, and most of the bad reviews I've seen are written by people who just bought the lens and didn't take the time to learn how to use it properly, which is, of course, a recipe for disappointment.
When out in the field after small birds or those that are wary, the 100-400 is often not enough muscle, but as an alternative to the high cost of the 500 and 600 can be just fine. I also do a lot of setup shooting at my home feeding station from a blind, and my perches are set at just a hair over six feet away (100-400 minimum focus distance is six feet), and even the small birds in that situation fill half or more of the frame.
I must also say that I use the 100-400 quite often for bouquet type flower shots, and a flower the size of a rose can fill the frame of the 100-400. While some of my macro work is very tight, with the Canon 100 macro and extension tubes, my usual technique involves isolating a cluster of blooms or a single bloom from its background and featuring those blossoms, and the 100-400 does that quite well. I also find the bokeh buttery smooth, which is important to me.
Discussion
5 repliesI want one lense for each of the following types of shooting (max. $2000ish each). Less is better but I want good 'tack sharp lenses'.
1) I am wanting to shoot macro. Flowers etc. I want to be able to shoot a bouquet or very close-up. Suggestions ? (100... 180)
2) I want to shoot wild life more. Birds, small animals etc. definitely pan shots. (100-400?)
I would appreciate if any Canonites who have experiece with these types of shooting would give me a moment and make some suggestions and perhaps some pros and cons.
Thank you in advance for any help you may offer.
Rick T
I can't help you on the longer, non-macro lens.
I just bought the 180mm macro to replace my 100mm and it is outstanding. The sharpness and color is tops. The added plus over the 100mm is you can use the teleconverters with the 180. The 1.4x really gives you some closeness.
Jack
Cheers
Rick T
On the 100-400L IS, it is my go-to wildlife/bird lens. It is quite sharp. Versatile, too, which is the only reason in my book to choose a zoom over a prime. Any of the L primes will be sharper wide open than the 100-400 is wide open at 400mm. Just the way it works. While the 100-400 is slow at max ap of f5.6, the IS helps quite a bit. I've shot indoor singing performances at 400mm and iso3200 with that lens at 1/40 sec and a monopod, and they are sweet and sharp. Of course, at slow shutter speeds, timing and technique are everything. The 100-400 has gotten mixed reviews on some of the other boards frequented by generally less experienced photographers than what we have on NPN, and most of the bad reviews I've seen are written by people who just bought the lens and didn't take the time to learn how to use it properly, which is, of course, a recipe for disappointment.
When out in the field after small birds or those that are wary, the 100-400 is often not enough muscle, but as an alternative to the high cost of the 500 and 600 can be just fine. I also do a lot of setup shooting at my home feeding station from a blind, and my perches are set at just a hair over six feet away (100-400 minimum focus distance is six feet), and even the small birds in that situation fill half or more of the frame.
I must also say that I use the 100-400 quite often for bouquet type flower shots, and a flower the size of a rose can fill the frame of the 100-400. While some of my macro work is very tight, with the Canon 100 macro and extension tubes, my usual technique involves isolating a cluster of blooms or a single bloom from its background and featuring those blossoms, and the 100-400 does that quite well. I also find the bokeh buttery smooth, which is important to me.