i hear ya, pf. i have a love/hate relationship with the damn thing. it's great for kids, family stuff outside, kids sports, candids. today, i did and experiment and drug the damn thing around nyc all day. it's a freakin' lead pipe that thing is, let me tell ya! after about 20 blocks, i'm asking myself "why am i doing this??" it is a superb lens though, sharpness, color all great. i love how it works indoors in places like grand central terminal, too.

i'm glad i have it, but it gets used by me maybe 20% of the time. my most used lens these days is my 16-35L f/2.8 - i really dig the wide angle!

macro - i'm thinking about a macro lens, could you tell me what some of the better choices are?

Originally Posted by pathfinder Dust motes are a fact of life. But carrying two DSLRs is just too much weight for me, so I change as needed. I have never developed the affection some shooters have for the 70-200 L. I bought one and it is probably my least used lens. It is sharp and precise but just not a length I go to. I use the 28-75 Tamron (recently replaced with the 24-70 L) most of the time, the 100-400 L, occaisionally the 17-40 L, and the rest of the time with the 180 Macro. But the 70-200 rarely gets called by me - I am not sure what this says but I find the 70-200 too long on the 10D indoors and too short outdoors. Maybe if I shot candids and portraits more I would use it more frequently. It sounds like Baldy is like my brother who rarely uses any other lens but the 70-200.

Originally Posted by andy i hear ya, pf. i have a love/hate relationship with the damn thing. it's great for kids, family stuff outside, kids sports, candids. today, i did and experiment and drug the damn thing around nyc all day. it's a freakin' lead pipe that thing is, let me tell ya! after about 20 blocks, i'm asking myself "why am i doing this??" it is a superb lens though, sharpness, color all great. i love how it works indoors in places like grand central terminal, too. i'm glad i have it, but it gets used by me maybe 20% of the time. my most used lens these days is my 16-35L f/2.8 - i really dig the wide angle! macro - i'm thinking about a macro lens, could you tell me what some of the better choices are?

Andy I neglected to mention that the 70-200f2.8 L IS is one of the heaviest lenses that I own and that MAY contribute to my lack of affection. Like you said, outdoors for family, kids, and for basketball games it can do a great job. It is fast, sharp, and handles nicely.. But heavy! And can intimidate some subjects also.

In the macro world I have strong opinions. My first good macro was a 90mm f2.5 Series One Vivitar for an Olympus OM-1. I know it was a really good lens because whoever stole it, thought so too apparently and liked the OM-1 as well. That was over 25 years ago. After that I had an affair with a 60m Nikkor and a 90mm Tamron f2.8. Both were quite satisfactory for film.
There are many fine 50mm macros by Canon, Tamron and Sigma. I think these may be fine for copy stand work of flat subjects, but not much else. Just too short a focal length.

Currently for the 10D I am using a Canon 100mm f2.8 and a Tamron 180mm f3.5 Di. Tamron's DI lenses have been highly regarded.
Much of my macros are of bugs and butterflies and flowers and I think that the 180 is the cats meow. The 180 gives much more working distance, less depth of field, and a narrower angle of view - all of these traits I think are helpful in controlling backgrounds. Butterflies are flighty, and the extra elbow room of the 180 is very helpful. Getting close enough for the 100 or 90mm lenses might be tough. I would add one of Canon's macro flash units as well if funds permitted.

If I were doing it over now, I would pass on the Canon 100mm ( which is an absolutely superb lens and tack sharp and I really like a great deal) and pass on the Tamron 180, and belly up and buy the Canon 180 USM macro.


This is an expensive lens but the USM motor is much nicer than the Tamron motor. I found with the 10D that I did much focusing by moving the camera and lens back and forth, but with the 1D I prefer autofocus because it WILL nail it. I think that the Canon 180 would be faster and quieter in autofocus. I really doubt the Canon would be much sharper than my Tamron 180- you can see many of my macros at pathfinder.smugmug.com. Some were with the 10D and some were with the 1dMkll. If price is a major consideration, I would look at the Tamron 90mm macro. It is excellent and may be long enough on the 10D. There are articles on the web suggesting that the Tamron 90 is sharper than the Canon 100mm Macro.

Canon publishes an MTF graph of their 180 Macro and it looks like this
In the Nikon world the 200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor is very highly regarded also.

In the end, it depends on how much you plan to use the lens and what your budget is. I have several Tamron lenses and like them a lot, but I have found that the Canon lenses have more robust mechanicals - lens barrels, focusing motors, etc. Makes me think the iris mechanicals might be more durable too. ALtho Canon is very proud of their lenses, I have never regretted owning their better grade of lenses. They truly are better than I once dreamed of owning. And do not forget the Canon macro flash units - they can really help - I also like the macro flash brackets of reallyrightstuff.com as well

Enjoy ( very close up) photography

addendum: I just found this link via google afer I posted : Gives very good reviews of the Vivitar Series One 90 f2.5 and the Tamron 90f2.5. Both of these might be found used if AUtofocus is not a concern.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=007MLq

Addendum#2: Because of Baldy's and many others love of the 70-200 f2.8 IS L Lens, I will offer one other possible style of macro lens -- That is to use the 70-200 f2.8 IS L with Canon's 500D filter style close up lens. Canon says it does not degrade the image quality of EF lenses. Canon also makes a 250D filter-lens for 30-135mm primes lenses. Some information about the 500D is here - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=87503&is=REG

I own and use a 250D in the 58mm diameter size sometimes - It seems to work very nicely - but of course you cannot focus at distance without removing it first. But the 250D and the 500D are chaper than macro primes.
Canon recommends the 250D 58mm diameter specifically for 1:1 macro for the G5 style digicam, and that is what I bought it for.

I received a Canon implant and the 70-200 IS is now part of me. I never look at my arms and think, "bummer...wish I only had to lug one of them with me today." They just grow out of my shoulder sockets and I don't think about it.

My 70-200 is like that. Doesn't matter where, how far, how small the luggage....it's with me.

Originally Posted by Baldy I received a Canon implant and the 70-200 IS is now part of me. I never look at my arms and think, "bummer...wish I only had to lug one of them with me today." They just grow out of my shoulder sockets and I don't think about it. My 70-200 is like that. Doesn't matter where, how far, how small the luggage....it's with me.

Originally Posted by pathfinder Thank you ... Thank you..... Here is another with the same Canon 100mm Macro...

great insect shots...Such vibrant colors. I find the top one (a cricket?) a bit oversharped, but that can be my eyesight. Love the ladybug...
You made lovely animals out of these critters with your photography.

Originally Posted by photocat great insect shots...Such vibrant colors. I find the top one (a cricket?) a bit oversharped, but that can be my eyesight. Love the ladybug... You made lovely animals out of these critters with your photography.

A cricket!!! My subjects feelings are truly crushed - He is not a wimpy cricket, but a predator of predators - a gigantic 4 inch long preying mantis!!
I went back and looked at the psd file of the mantis on my monitor with the head 15 inches wide and do not believe it is oversharpended. I can see the individual facets in the multiple eyes clearly. There is some moisture on the antennae that may look overbright - but remember that smugmug resharpens the images in the process of downsizing them for presentation on the web. SO maybe it seems oversharpened as displayed here on dgrin.

Here are a couple more images so you can never forget what a high level insect predator looks like - It never seemed to fear me and my camera and my flash - more like it was curious than afraid.....

Originally Posted by pathfinder A cricket!!! My subjects feelings are truly crushed - He is not a wimpy cricket, but a predator of predators - a gigantic 4 or 5 inch long preying mantis!!

Offer my sincere appologies to the beast. I am dutch speaking and can goof up really bad, I hope it will forgive me.
Having said that, I really really like the second color shot. There is some pink on both sides that frames it nicely. It seems to laugh at the camera.
Beautiful animal that got a worthy of eternity shot out of YOUR camera.
Macro at its best.

Originally Posted by pathfinder A cricket!!! My subjects feelings are truly crushed - He is not a wimpy cricket, but a predator of predators - a gigantic 4 or 5 inch long preying mantis!!

Wow!! I love that head shot. Looks like an alien from outer space. Great work!

Are you SURE thats not a criket?

great shots

Originally Posted by GREAPER Are you SURE thats not a criket?

Crikey! Crikey! It's a MANTIS!

Wow! Those are both fantastic!

Ian

with Spring coming - I find this a very useful thread.... BTW - i just realized theres a search engine on here! They should make it more obvious for people like me.......


troy

Originally Posted by andy okay, pathfinder.. today, i went to b&h and amongst other things, i bought myself a canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. now, can you give me some pointers?

Man I need to go rob a bank for all the lenses I want

Please contribute to the USAIR lens fund

A photog without lens is a terrible waste

Thank You
Fred

I want to thank everybody here for sharing tips and pictures ! Wow !



Andy, you should consider reading John Shaw's book: it's a classic !

Thierry

Originally Posted by pathfinder Crikey! Crikey! It's a MANTIS!

looks more like a grasshopper.

J: Your Mantis is just outstanding!

H: I've yet to see one of these, but I have no shortage of crickets!
J&H

Originally Posted by Jekyll & Hyde J: Your Mantis is just outstanding! H: I've yet to see one of these, but I have no shortage of crickets! J&H

Why thank you Dr. Jekyll!! I'm sure my mantis would be only too happy to eat one of your crickets. He's practicing on one of his own legs now....

Originally Posted by pathfinder Why thank you Dr. Jekyll!! I'm sure my mantis would be only too happy to eat one of your crickets. He's practicing on one of his own legs now....

J:

H: And Mantids aren't the only ones who like to dine on crickets!

Originally Posted by Jekyll & Hyde J: H: And Mantids aren't the only ones who like to dine on crickets!

Cool!! I like how the predator is just barely visible. Is this your entry for minimalism too? Is that a mantis in the background - doesn't look like a spider to me...... Hmmmm