Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by klotzishere20, Jun 24, 2010.
What would it be?
i was thinking the 100 L IS
Right now - from canon alone - the 100mm f2.8 IS L without question. However if you expand out to allow 3rd party I would also consider the Sigma 150mm and 180mm and also the fact that sigma appear to be readying a release of something new in that area (I expect a macro lens with OS either a 150mm or 180mm).
Before the 100mm L IS from canon I would have said go with one of the sigma's over the canon options - now however the water is more muddy.
It would be the Sigma 150mm. Longer macro lenses are really handy,and the Sigma 150 has lovely drawing style and bokeh. It's one of Sigma's best lenses.
so you would both prolly go with the sigma over the canon?
any other input?
Take a look at this review of the 100mm L macro lens, ad take note of the purple flower illustration, showing the SAME-sized flower, but the vastly different background angle of view and background blurring effects of a 180mm macro, a 100mm macro, and a 60mm macro lens. This simple test scenario is mostly why I prefer a longer macro lens--it renders the backgrounds blurrier, and narrower in angle of view, for a given object magnification in the foreground.
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens Review
Lloyd Chambers does a lot of lens reviews and has a highly regarded web site. He suggests that the 100-L might be very difficult to produce. Not sure what kind of stuff you want to use this macro lens for, or what your criteria are: perhaps a lighter-weight macro lens would be better if you plan on carrying it long distances,such as on botanical hikes,day trips,etc...the longer lenses are in the low-30 ounce range, the 100-L is in the 22 oz range.
Separate names with a comma.