The Official Camera Equipment Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrkgoo said:
What zombi said. After a certain point, images actually become softer because the aperture is small, you get diffraction.

I tend not to go over f/16 ever if I can help it, with 11 being pretty sensible.
Click to expand...

Made more rambiling edits above.

Well see you learn something new every day! I'm learning all my photography stuff on the fly, you guys have no idea how much I appreciate your help. :D I am working with my cousin to see if I can set up some photography blog on my domain. But that of course is relatively on the backburner compared to me going out and shooting with my camera.
 
mrkgoo said:
There are no good 'all in one' lenses. There are always compromises. Also it defeats the purpose of having interchangeable lenses. Right tool for the right job.

There is a pretty crap 55-200 out there, but I heard the newest EF-S 50-250mm IS is actually pretty solid. Don't walk away with the notion that expensive is better. Often a lot of the expense is NOT optical quality, which has diminishing returns as you go higher.

You also have to realise that all of the modern lenses, even cheap EF-S mounts, tend to be much better than consumer lens models made decades ago. The resolving power of modern cameras are much more demanding, and hence why you are seeing a lot of really good EF-S lenses now.
Click to expand...

Oh I totally understand wanting and needing to change lenses. Don't get me wrong there, but right now I'm just trying to find a good general lens that I will use probably 80% of the time. I want to start more general and work my way to specific needs. I just don't think I'll ever become the backpack full of lenses type though. I think I just want a good set of two or three lenses.

Here's some of the situations I think I'll be using the camera in:

- Family gatherings/holidays/birthdays
- Vacation
- Watching a hockey or baseball game
- GDC, E3, Wondercon, Comic-Con panels and show floor
- Eventually, taking picture of my kids

In many of those cases, I'll likely just have the lens I have on me and not want to swap or be carrying the extra load or inconvience of needing to swap quickly in odd places. I know there will be some situations where I do plan on swapping for like landscape and wide views, so I totally expect to have a couple lenses in some cases.

I'm just trying to get started for now and get something to replace the kit lens.
 
mrkgoo said:
What zombi said. After a certain point, images actually become softer because the aperture is small, you get diffraction.

I tend not to go over f/16 ever if I can help it, with 11 being pretty sensible.

I use the spatula, eclipse and special wipes. Just order the kit and follow the instructions.
Click to expand...


why is this? Is it because of crop cameras? I have books showing f/22 for landscapes etc and f/8 or f/11 for general work. Is there a new rule of thumb for crop cameras? eg needing one stop less to get the equivalent DoF that you would have had on a ff/film camera?
 
mrklaw said:
why is this? Is it because of crop cameras? I have books showing f/22 for landscapes etc and f/8 or f/11 for general work. Is there a new rule of thumb for crop cameras? eg needing one stop less to get the equivalent DoF that you would have had on a ff/film camera?
Click to expand...

Crop cameras hit the point of diffusion sooner, yes. 35mm cameras will likely see some softening at f/22, then again at f/32, crop cameras sooner. f/16 is playing with it, but even if there is diffraction at that point it won't be too bad, usually.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Oh I totally understand wanting and needing to change lenses. Don't get me wrong there, but right now I'm just trying to find a good general lens that I will use probably 80% of the time. I want to start more general and work my way to specific needs. I just don't think I'll ever become the backpack full of lenses type though. I think I just want a good set of two or three lenses.

Here's some of the situations I think I'll be using the camera in:

- Family gatherings/holidays/birthdays
- Vacation
- Watching a hockey or baseball game
- GDC, E3, Wondercon, Comic-Con panels and show floor
- Eventually, taking picture of my kids

In many of those cases, I'll likely just have the lens I have on me and not want to swap or be carrying the extra load or inconvience of needing to swap quickly in odd places. I know there will be some situations where I do plan on swapping for like landscape and wide views, so I totally expect to have a couple lenses in some cases.

I'm just trying to get started for now and get something to replace the kit lens.
Click to expand...

For 4/5 things you mentioned, a general lens like the 24-70L, 28-135mm, and 24-105L pretty much covers it all. The 24-70L is pretty much on my Camera 90% of the time, with 5% being the 85 f1.8 and the last 5% being my 28-135mm.

The lens is excellent when I brought it with me to Zion and Bryce national park, Anime Expo, Anime LA, and a variety of family weddings. The only time I wish I had a longer zoom like the 70-200 f2.8L was when I tried taking pictures of deer in Zion.
 
I want a 24-70 f2.8 quite badly (I'm leaning towards the Sigma, since it's half the price of a Canon L)... But I'm worried that at wide-open it's gonna be ever-so-slightly soft, and stopping down to f3.2 (or whatever is next) would be just a little too dark for night stuff.

As such, I'm having a hard time deciding whether I should just get a set of old nikkor primes (I'd need a 24, 35, and 85 at ~f2, which I could then stop down to f2.8 for additional sharpness, but primes are usually sharper than zooms anyway), or just bite the bullet and get a 24-70. On APS-C, I'd almost think that 85mm (equiv. to ~135mm) might be a little too tele, so I could probably skip that. Conversely, I might need/want something wider than 24, but similarly fast (I don't think Nikkor has an old 20 f2, do they?)

I'm also looking at the Sigma 20mm f1.8 and 30 f1.4 with lusting eyes, but I heard they're APS-C only, so if I ever go to Full Frame I'll get poopy vignetting (a big pet-peeve of mine... I don't like it as a stylistic choice at all.)

...By the way, I'm coming at it from a video perspective (which is 1/30th shutter and ISO1600 maximum.) On an APS-C, 70 is equivalent to approximately 115mm, which is a pretty decent tele.
 
quick - 7D with 18-135IS (cheap and cheerful lens), 7D with 15-85IS (more expensive but more of a keeper walkaround), or Panny GF1 with 20mm pancake?

Don't have a DSLR anymore, just a compact. Want to get back into it, but last time I went a bit mad with 70-200f4IS, 100-400L etc which I hardly used. So part of me wants a 7D but another part of me wants a nice simple camera with decent control.
 
mrklaw said:
quick - 7D with 18-135IS (cheap and cheerful lens), 7D with 15-85IS (more expensive but more of a keeper walkaround), or Panny GF1 with 20mm pancake?

Don't have a DSLR anymore, just a compact. Want to get back into it, but last time I went a bit mad with 70-200f4IS, 100-400L etc which I hardly used. So part of me wants a 7D but another part of me wants a nice simple camera with decent control.
Click to expand...

If you're going for the 7D, do the 15-85.

Panasonice 4/3 is a great choice too.
 
-Rogue5- said:
I want a 24-70 f2.8 quite badly (I'm leaning towards the Sigma, since it's half the price of a Canon L)... But I'm worried that at wide-open it's gonna be ever-so-slightly soft, and stopping down to f3.2 (or whatever is next) would be just a little too dark for night stuff.

As such, I'm having a hard time deciding whether I should just get a set of old nikkor primes (I'd need a 24, 35, and 85 at ~f2, which I could then stop down to f2.8 for additional sharpness, but primes are usually sharper than zooms anyway), or just bite the bullet and get a 24-70. On APS-C, I'd almost think that 85mm (equiv. to ~135mm) might be a little too tele, so I could probably skip that. Conversely, I might need/want something wider than 24, but similarly fast (I don't think Nikkor has an old 20 f2, do they?)

I'm also looking at the Sigma 20mm f1.8 and 30 f1.4 with lusting eyes, but I heard they're APS-C only, so if I ever go to Full Frame I'll get poopy vignetting (a big pet-peeve of mine... I don't like it as a stylistic choice at all.)

...By the way, I'm coming at it from a video perspective (which is 1/30th shutter and ISO1600 maximum.) On an APS-C, 70 is equivalent to approximately 115mm, which is a pretty decent tele.
Click to expand...

As long as the lens is within Canon's margin, it can be microadjusted on most of the modern Canon SLR's, except the Rebels :(
 
Hcoregamer00 said:
For 4/5 things you mentioned, a general lens like the 24-70L, 28-135mm, and 24-105L pretty much covers it all. The 24-70L is pretty much on my Camera 90% of the time, with 5% being the 85 f1.8 and the last 5% being my 28-135mm.

The lens is excellent when I brought it with me to Zion and Bryce national park, Anime Expo, Anime LA, and a variety of family weddings. The only time I wish I had a longer zoom like the 70-200 f2.8L was when I tried taking pictures of deer in Zion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I'm curious though, after playing arund with the 28-135mm, you really think that's good enough for panels at conferences? Sometimes you can be a bit of a distance from the speaker. I'm still looking around, but I think I'm slowly narrowing it between these two:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - $359
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom - $579

Still hard to decide...
 
Marty Chinn said:
Thanks for the advice. I'm curious though, after playing arund with the 28-135mm, you really think that's good enough for panels at conferences? Sometimes you can be a bit of a distance from the speaker. I'm still looking around, but I think I'm slowly narrowing it between these two:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - $359
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom - $579

Still hard to decide...
Click to expand...
How often will you be going to these conferences? If it's not that often, just rent a 70-200 f2.8 on the occasions that you go.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Thanks for the advice. I'm curious though, after playing arund with the 28-135mm, you really think that's good enough for panels at conferences? Sometimes you can be a bit of a distance from the speaker. I'm still looking around, but I think I'm slowly narrowing it between these two:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - $359
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom - $579

Still hard to decide...
Click to expand...

Buy the 28-135mm, if you are sitting a longer distance away, just rent a 70-200 4L with IS.

For a budget, quality lens, the EF 28-135 can't be beat.
 
I'm a bit surprised and disappointed in the negative impressions of the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8. For that price I was sure the build quality would be rather high (but obviously not as high as the L series). I do own two other lenses in the "higher end" EF-S USM series, the 10-22mm and the 60mm Macro; is the 15-55 of about the same quality, or would you guys say it's worse? I guess I'll have to find a specimen that I can try out for a bit before I buy one anyhow.

Maybe I'll just scratch that one from the list and just get one of the decent zoom lenses that are bundled with the 7D at some point later this year.

Edit: Any opinions or first hand impressions of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (XR Di-II LD IF VC, seriously that's too much alphabet soup), btw?
 
VNZ said:
I'm a bit surprised and disappointed in the negative impressions of the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8. For that price I was sure the build quality would be rather high (but obviously not as high as the L series). I do own two other lenses in the "higher end" EF-S USM series, the 10-22mm and the 60mm Macro; is the 15-55 of about the same quality, or would you guys say it's worse? I guess I'll have to find a specimen that I can try out for a bit before I buy one anyhow.

Maybe I'll just scratch that one from the list and just get one of the decent zoom lenses that are bundled with the 7D at some point later this year.

Edit: Any opinions or first hand impressions of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (XR Di-II LD IF VC, seriously that's too much alphabet soup), btw?
Click to expand...

Well, there is no such thing as a perfect lens.

I am certainly hoping that Canon listens to what the customers want and improve the lens. Better build quality, weather sealing, and maybe even improve the range. If they did that, I would have bought said lens in a heartbeat over the 24-70L (as good as the lens is, I want IS without paying $2,000 for the lens)
 
there is always a compromise. In the case of crop cameras, there isn't really a wide enough walkaround lens thats an L.

My ideal walkaround lens would probably be a mix of the 17-55 2.8, the 24-105L and the 15-85IS. So a 15-85 f2.8L IS.
 
Hcoregamer00 said:
Buy the 28-135mm, if you are sitting a longer distance away, just rent a 70-200 4L with IS.

For a budget, quality lens, the EF 28-135 can't be beat.
Click to expand...

No.

Worst lens Canon makes. No joke. What a piece of junk.
 
what do you guys think of the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for $300? Found a guy selling his used one and looks to be in good condition. There's no way I'm able to pay for the Nikon version.

Then there's the old Nikon 35-70 F2.8 which goes for about $500+ used.
 
Hcoregamer00 said:
Buy the 28-135mm, if you are sitting a longer distance away, just rent a 70-200 4L with IS.

For a budget, quality lens, the EF 28-135 can't be beat.
Click to expand...

So I'm also in the market for a walk-around/travel lens for my XSi and I've been following the conversation here, but I'm still a little confused. I don't think I can justify any L quality glass at the moment, and I already own the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens as well as the EF 50mm f/1.8.

Is the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 the clear choice against the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 or the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6? I know that there is no perfect lens and these all can do slightly different things, but I just want something of good quality in this walk-around category that I won't outgrow too quickly.

If I pick up one of these lenses, is there any reason to keep my old kit lens, or should I just sell it used to cover some of the cost?
 
joshschw said:
No.

Worst lens Canon makes. No joke. What a piece of junk.
Click to expand...

Worse than the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom?

Hcoregamer00 said:
I disagree, Canon has far worse lenses in its lineup.
Click to expand...

Heh not giving me the most confidence right now =) I just read something where the 18-200mm focuses faster and has better image stablization, is that true?
 
Stuck said:
So I'm also in the market for a walk-around/travel lens for my XSi and I've been following the conversation here, but I'm still a little confused. I don't think I can justify any L quality glass at the moment, and I already own the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens as well as the EF 50mm f/1.8.

Is the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 the clear choice against the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 or the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6? I know that there is no perfect lens and these all can do slightly different things, but I just want something of good quality in this walk-around category that I won't outgrow too quickly.

If I pick up one of these lenses, is there any reason to keep my old kit lens, or should I just sell it used to cover some of the cost?
Click to expand...

If you said EF-S 15-85, I would say that it is worth it.

That piece of glass is probably the best thing you can buy on your SLR until you get the 17-55 2.8 or move up to the 24-70L.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Worse than the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom?

Heh not giving me the most confidence right now =) I just read something where the 18-200mm focuses faster and has better image stablization, is that true?
Click to expand...

Here is why I would avoid the 18-200

"As noted earlier in the review, I used a Canon EOS 50D for testing this lens. Testing a lens with a new camera requires getting to know both at the same time. One of the things I am noticing with the very high density APS-C 50D sensor is that diffraction starts eroding image sharpness by f/8. The Rebel XSi/450D is not far behind with diffraction showing just past f/8. So, what I'm saying, is that stopping down to f/11 delivers less-sharpness with the latest 1.6x cameras (on all lenses). This leaves a narrow range of aperture settings to achieve the best image quality from this lens."

If you want to buy a quality EF-S Lens, get the 15-85

"The 15mm and 17mm to-something lenses have slightly wider angles available, but the 200mm end is simply really nice to have in the same lens. Super-zooms generally compromise image quality to some degree to gain their range. While I like the EF-S 18-200 and would prefer to have this lens over the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens, the EF-S 15-85 and EF-S 17-55 offer better image quality along with excellent Ring USM AF."
 
Marty Chinn said:
Worse than the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom?



Heh not giving me the most confidence right now =) I just read something where the 18-200mm focuses faster and has better image stablization, is that true?
Click to expand...

I've never used the 18-200, but I can't imagine it being worse than the 28-135.

If you really want I could send you some old samples from when I had it still, it makes your pics look like high res cell phone pics a lot of the time. Has focus problems galore and even at its sharpest, which is a rare thing indeed, it's pretty mediocre.

You're not going to get a GREAT all-in-one lens like that. But you want one that doesn't screw up half the time!

Oh, and the IS on the 28-135 blows too. Nearly useless.

I'm sure both the 15-85 and 18-200 are better lenses. But, again, never used either of them.
 
joshschw said:
I've never used the 18-200, but I can't imagine it being worse than the 28-135.

If you really want I could send you some old samples from when I had it still, it makes your pics look like high res cell phone pics a lot of the time. Has focus problems galore and even at its sharpest, which is a rare thing indeed, it's pretty mediocre.

You're not going to get a GREAT all-in-one lens like that. But you want one that doesn't screw up half the time!

Oh, and the IS on the 28-135 blows too. Nearly useless.

I'm sure both the 15-85 and 18-200 are better lenses. But, again, never used either of them.
Click to expand...

You must have had a bad copy, because I took amazing pictures on my lens, even wide open. Just because you had a bad copy doesn't mean that all the lenses are like that. The lens gets even better when you stop it down.

It is a great lens, here are some of of my pictures. Guess which one is the 24-70L and which is the 28-135?

06dacb81.jpg


3896eb7f.jpg


IMG_7376.jpg
 
Hcoregamer00 said:
You must have had a bad copy, because I took amazing pictures on my lens, even wide open. Just because you had a bad copy doesn't mean that all the lenses are like that. The lens gets even better when you stop it down.

It is a great lens, here are some of of my pictures. Guess which one is the 24-70L and which is the 28-135?

06dacb81.jpg


3896eb7f.jpg


IMG_7376.jpg
Click to expand...

135
70 -it's not sharp, but it's wide open 2.8 is my guess. Any glass wide open isn't going to be sharp, maybe 1 or 2 lenses are the exception
135

and I can tell this at with poorly compressed 800px versions of your pics. Imagine what they look like at a normal size?

If you're satisfied, fine, I don't mind that you enjoy it. But I certainly would never see someone asking about it and not try to dissuade them from it. Sorry.
I know... Probably 4 people who have had a 28-135... Not a one would say anything better about any aspect of it then I did here.

I like the last shot too, cool :)
 
joshschw said:
135
70 -it's not sharp, but it's wide open 2.8 is my guess. Any glass wide open isn't going to be sharp, maybe 1 or 2 lenses are the exception
135

and I can tell this at with poorly compressed 800px versions of your pics. Imagine what they look like at a normal size?

If you're satisfied, fine, I don't mind that you enjoy it. But I certainly would never see someone asking about it and not try to dissuade them from it. Sorry.
I know... Probably 4 people who have had a 28-135... Not a one would say anything better about any aspect of it then I did here.

I like the last shot too, cool :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I feel the complete opposite you do.

My experience with the 28-135 has been great, so I take complete offense when someone completely mis-characterizes the lens. I would be inclined to agree that it is not the best lens (the 24-70L is on a whole different level), but it is very far from your spurious claims (hi-res cell phone pics, etc.)

For the used price that you get for the lens, you have an amazing introductory lens that will help you develop technique and hone skills, while also allowing the user to focus on what they NEED for future lenses. Just like how you feel you need to make your point, I feel I need to make mine, and mine is that you are getting a good lens for a good price. So we will agree to disagree, if you will push your point further, I will continue to argue.

Edit: I also could have used better sample pics (same f-stop), because the bokeh was a dead giveaway to any experienced photographer.
 
Soo camera-GAF, I'm looking for a tripod to use with my D5000, what's a good and cheap (<$50) one I can buy? Sorry if my request is a little to vague, I basically know nothing about photography.
 
LethaL ImpuLse said:
Soo camera-GAF, I'm looking for a tripod to use with my D5000, what's a good and cheap (<$50) one I can buy? Sorry if my request is a little to vague, I basically know nothing about photography.
Click to expand...

I have this one and it's really nice for being as cheap as it is. Pretty light, too!
 
lbcyalater said:
mrkgoo said:
Originally Posted by mrkgoo:
Yeah prices shot up due to the Japanese exchange rate.

But be thankful. I bought mine for about US$350 second hand (it did come with a hood and bag). That's because this lens comes in at NZ$800 new, which is about US$560.

Hmm, I should buy more lenses before I head back
Click to expand...
yeah why not lol, go buy the new 100mm macro :D
Click to expand...

It's a sickness. I need help.

 
After many delays, I finally picked up the Zuiko 12-60 a few days ago. Pricey, but it's quite an upgrade in most respects compared to the kit lens. I know other people in this thread also own this particular piece of glass.

oLnEw.jpg
 
Instigator said:
After many delays, I finally picked up the Zuiko 12-60 a few days ago. Pricey, but it's quite an upgrade in most respects compared to the kit lens. I know other people in this thread also own this particular piece of glass.

http://imgur.com/oLnEw.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
yessir.
Always in my pack wherever i go.

Congrats. Fantastic zoom.

It's cheaper now than when i bought it last year. :(
Click to expand...
 
captive said:
yessir.
Always in my pack wherever i go.

Congrats. Fantastic zoom.

It's cheaper now than when i bought it last year. :(
Click to expand...

It has very good specs, versatility wise. How much is it, and what is the optical quality like?
 
mrkgoo said:
It has very good specs, versatility wise. How much is it, and what is the optical quality like?
Click to expand...
700-900 depending.

Optical quality it is superb. It does distort at 12mm.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1138/cat/all
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_12-60_2p8-4_o20/

It did my decay assignment entry, my warmth assignment entry, all the pics in the "series" assignment, my "mike and jenn" pic

Here is an example of the distortion at 12mm. I dont mind it hardly anyone is going to notice in this picture and the horizon isn't the subject anyway. Have this one 9x12 framed.
3871818910_434f9ce961_o.jpg


bokeh is excellent
doubledelight2.jpg


Still light enough to be handheld at 1/10th IS OFF.
4366341223_b13c145035_b.jpg


Houston city scape
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35765710@N02/3914687544/sizes/o/

Did this one @f16
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35765710@N02/4359461038/sizes/l/
 
mrkgoo said:
It's a sickness. I need help.

Click to expand...

Cool, I'll be looking forward to hearing your impressions of it. The next lens I want is a macro, and I'm trying to decide between the 100/2.8L IS and the older 100/2.8.
 
chaostrophy said:
Cool, I'll be looking forward to hearing your impressions of it. The next lens I want is a macro, and I'm trying to decide between the 100/2.8L IS and the older 100/2.8.
Click to expand...

Captive: Looks like a sweet lens. I have the 17-55 IS f/2.8, and the versatility is amazing. This 12-60 will have an even more impressive range, but I guess you lose a bit of portrait use (due to lack of wide aperture at the long end). It has IS too? Man, sweet.

Chastrophy: I hear they are optically very similar, maybe a smudge better for the L. The reason I decided to give it a go was that I love the 85mm focal length, and this isn't a stretch from that. I lose some wide apertureness, but I'm hoping the bokeh rendition, the sharpness, and the CA are all improved over that. Also, I really love my 60mm Macro, but find the bokeh is a bit 'scratchy'. This is a way to roll two of my favourite primes into one. Sort of.

As Blue Tsunami mentioned (and is reassuring to here!), I chose it because it seems to be super versatile. With the new IS, I can use it in places I couldn't even use the 60mm. I have taken sharp shots (non-macro) at 1/10th of a second at 100mm on a crop camera (I've found, on a good day, I can handhold pretty well even without IS, so with 4-stop IS, the 100mm seems to be crazy awesome).

I'll be sure to post more impressions and pictures when I get a real good go at this.

I may have an EF-S 60mm MAcro up for sale!
 
mrkgoo said:
Captive: Looks like a sweet lens. I have the 17-55 IS f/2.8, and the versatility is amazing. This 12-60 will have an even more impressive range, but I guess you lose a bit of portrait use (due to lack of wide aperture at the long end). It has IS too? Man, sweet.
Click to expand...
Olympus does IBIS.
 
mrkgoo said:
It's a sickness. I need help.

Click to expand...

Oh no, did you catch the L fever? :(

I am getting it too, we need two vaccinations for it before it consumes us all.

All sarcasm aside, I hope that we get some prime lenses updated with IS (I am looking at you 135L and 200L)
 
Futureman said:
Anyone have the Sigma 24mm f1.8 lens?

Thinking of picking it up. I want a wide angle lens for low light situations.
Click to expand...

I don't have that, but I have the Sigma 28mm f1.8 for my K-20d. I find it rather soft wide open, and there was some strong purple fringing. Stepped down to f2.5 and lower and it gets a lot better.
 
Squirrel Killer said:
How much?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure. I generally keep all my stuff, but if I never use it again (or much), I guess it's wise to sell it. Let's see, suggest retail is US$469, and B&H sell it for US$422. I have no idea what's reasonable. Not making a quote (I still need to decide) or anything but it'd probably be around the $300 mark. Maybe $322 just to be $100 off new. I notice Amazon have used ones for around US$380, so I'd definitely not go higher than $350. Oh, and I have a hood for this too. That would go with it.

That said, my fiancee does a lot of art and would probably find a macro lens for product shots very useful. I also have a soft spot for the 60mm macro. It's such a great little lens.
 
Some test shots with the 100mm Macro IS L.

If you want to see IS in action:

(these are also at iso3200 on a 7D - THIS is fairly low light photography!)

Click for 1024pix.

EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/13s, iso3200

I slightly missed focus with this one, but it's the most interesting image:

EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/13s, iso3200


EF100mm Macro L IS, f/2.8, 1/6s, iso3200

The last one is freaking 1/6s!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
146 147 148 149 150
7K
651K
Deleted member 17706 replied
  • Locked
Resetera and the pedo problem (updates)
NSFW  43 44 45 46 47
2K
495K
notkeylime replied
  • Locked
What relaxes you the most?
0
4K
Halo is Back replied
The Crisis in Venezula
2
2K
God Enel replied
  • Locked
What is the most painless way to commit suicide?
3
4K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom