DSLR Photography Forum

oooo! Like!

Nice!

Excellent, makes me feel wobbly around the edges!

Does anyone else want to jump in to that picture and roll up and down the hill?

or is it just me?

Hey did you get a new lens you haven't yet told us about???

No. This time it really is me testing new CS2 discoveries...... Blimey! So much to learn, so few biscuits!!
Actually, this pic was me out testing my 100mm macro at distance stuff.

Guess what? It bl**dy useless!!! Fantastic at macro, but anything else? No thanks.
Now, here's a shock for you all.......... I've suspected this for a while now........

Ready?? Sitting down? Good.

100mm macro, 24-85 usm, 17-36exdg HSM, 135-400 Sigma, 28-105 usm, 50mm 1.8, .............

Which is the best lens??
Well, if I had to award points out of 10 for sharpness, it'd be:
50mm = 8
28-105=7
135-400=6
17-35=6 also
24-85=5.5
100mm macro=4 :o

Thing is, that 28-105 is considered to be a rather poor lens.
POOR, MY BOTTOM! It's great!!

Can't remember if we touched on this on phone, but...does the macro by any chance improve as you stop down?

Not at distances, no. It's another wierd thing.... I tried 2.8, 8, 16, 22 and 32.
2.8 was as good as 8. After that, it deteriorated.
In macro mode though, the opposite is true.

Confused?

I am!.

Rufus Wrote:Confused?

Yes. Surely not the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens? It gets such high marks elsewhere. :/

Yes, that very one!!!

I'm going to do some more experiments...... Maybe there's human hair on the glass.

Is it new? If so, send it to Canon for service. If not, send it along with a check.

No, I've had it for 18 months or more.

Yes, just tested the 100mm macro @f8, and the 28-105, set to 100mm @f8

Centre sharpness, colour, contrast, no difference! Edge sharpness, however.. 100mm macro probably 20% better.

Mind ewe, this 28-105 is exceptional..... I think..... Or everythings gone paws-up. :/

Here is an example of the 28-105.

This chimney is about 50 metres away, say what...130 feet ish??
The lens is zoomed to 98mm @f8 (closest to 100 I ever got!).

Obviously, this is a savage crop, but it's 100%, and I think it begins to convey the sharpness, (handheld), of the cheapo zoom.

Probably.

Yes, that is indeed very crisp. Sometimes you get a cheapo lens and it does wonders. My old 28-135 was exceptionally sharp at f/8.

But back to the macro lens: are your results comparable to what you see in this article?
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

You may just have a bum lens. Probably needs to be calibrated by Canon. I had my camera and 70-200 lens calibrated and the improvement was very noticeable.

are your results comparable to what you see in this article? Said Slej


Yes, actually..... In fact I think they may be better. :/

Is it though, a case of cross-eyed photographers?

As they say at dessert markets...a trifle bazaar.

Rufus Wrote:are your results comparable to what you see in this article? Said Slej
Yes, actually..... In fact I think they may be better. :/

Interesting. I'm really surprised at the pics from that lens at f/16 - very soft.

I was thinking about getting a macro lens, but believe I will stick with extension tubes for now.

I do think tubes are actually superior, though the macro ability of the 100mm is very good.

Hang on, I'll see if I can find an example.... Give me 30 minutes...........



Zoom! ................... He's gone

The Tamron 90mm F2.8 Di macro (1:1) lens is absolutely outstanding and is available in a Canon or a Nikon mount.

Toad, what is your working space for a 1:1 shot with that lens? One thing I don't like about tubes is the relatively short working space for less than full 1:1 macro.

Sorry, loused up..... Will have to find image tomorrow...... Totally freaked out. Screaming mad......


Need medication.............

About a foot.