Macro lens for 20d

[3pronghook]

Own a canon 20d...have been using my two tamron lenses from my old eos 10s. 28-200 and 200-400. neither have great close focus or even working focal capabilities. What lense is available for good macro? Can i get true 1:1 with just a lense? or is a filter or a converter needed? What should I look for and whats available for a reasonable price($500)?

[Steve Foss]

3prong: Canon has just the lens for you. Check out the 100mm 1:1 macro. Lists for a bit over $400 at Canoga Camera, the online store I do all my photo gear/supplies shopping at. Tamron makes a very sweet 90mm 1:1, but it's about the same price, so I vote for the Canon. I've shot all three Canon macro primes (60, 100 and 180mm), and they're all sharp, full of contrast and color. The 100mm is less than half the price of the vaunted Canon L series 180mm 1:1 macro. You give up some working distance with the 100 instead of the 180, which can be a minus if you're shooting very spooky butterflies or insects, but in some cases in cramped quarters the 180mm is too much lens, so it's six of one or a half dozen of the other. Also, for $150 you can pick up a new set of Kenko extension tubes, which I have done, and that extends the apparent power of the macro, which translates into longer working distance.

Good luck, good shopping and, most importantly, good shooting! With the 1.6 crop factor on the 20D, you'll turn that 100mm effectively into a 160mm, too. Switching from your older Tamron zooms to any of the three Canon macro primes will give you a boost in image quality that will blow you away.

[Swimmer]

Great advice as usual Steve. I was bidding on a set on Kenko tubes on the Bay, but missed out on the last minutes (cat got out)...I think they went for ~$115...darn. I felt confident in buying a set of Kenkos, simplistic design, but not sure about buying a used lense on hsolist. It looks like you can get a "gently used"100-400L IS for around $1100 on hsolist. Would you pull the trigger? I'm guessing your reply would be "NO". I think the new copies can be had for ~$1400.

[Swimmer]

Update. I was searched for Kenkos earlier this week on hsolist as mentioned above. I decided to go to Hong Kong hsolist and just ordered a set new for $100 (with shipping). I'll let you guys know if I have any problems.

[Dbl]

Swimmer I wish I had known you were looking for a 100-400L, I just sold mine on Monday.

[Steve Foss]

Swimmer, I'd pull the trigger on that hsolist lens only if: 1. It's new in the box. 2. The factory warranty is transferrable or has not expired. 3. The seller has total blue-ribbon ratings from customers.

[Swimmer]

Yup Steve, I though this might be your answer...effectively backing up my inner thoughts. Besides if you are spending that kind of ka-ching, a few hundred more would be worth a new, guaranteed, one. I wish the local peddlers would/could match the prices at B&H or Canoga.

Dan, I should have put the word out better on my desire for a 100-400L. If you don't mind my prying...why did you sell it? Going back to Pentax? (just kidding)

[Steve Foss]

Swimmer, I bought my 100-400 new, and had it back a month later on warranty because it kept giving me error 99 messages and lockups on all three camera bodies I had at my disposal. They replaced a whole bunch of expensive things and it cost me nothing. Used on hsolist? Would have been my dime. Well, thousands of my dimes.

I know why Dan traded in his 100-400L f4.5-5.6 IS for the 70-200f2.8L and 1.4 TC. But I'll let him answer when he's got time. Hint: It has to do with indoor sports.

[Dbl]

Swimmer,

I'm not sure I could handle one more brand change without going bankrupt! If I would have known you had an interest you would have been the first to be offered. My requirements for shooting have taken a slight turn in the road and I found myself in need of a "faster" lens. Since I could not at this time justify spending more money on another "L" the 100-400L had to go.

With some excellent advice and guidance from Steve and a few others, on Monday I acquired a new 70-200/f2.8L and a Canon 1.4x II. The 100-400L financed a large part of that. Hurts me to see it go, I had gotten very attached to its versatility, but for indoor and evening sports shooting which is the majority of my shooting for the next 6 months, it was doing me no good.

Steve is right about warranty, these can be very expensive to maintain should one break, which thankfully is not often. I bought mine used from National Camera and I had a 90 day warranty. I was contemplating sending the lens to Canon for calibration, cost covered by purchasing a used lens locally, $180 to have it done out of your pocket. The IS repairs are around $350 to $400 should it go bad, so you have to decide whether an hsolist transaction is worth the gamble. There is a good 100-400L now available or at least it was (mine) at NC. I know some won't deal with them because of their prices, but you do pay a bit for extra service. I was able to deal and get them close to a B&H or Canoga price because of past purchases. That may not be for everyone, I am establishing a business and a good relationship with someone local is important to me, but I have ordered from both the other companies and had excellent experiences.

By the way I have about 500 shots through my 70-200 this week and all I can say is WOW. I have some night shooting tomorrow and some late afternoon shooting this weekend so I will reap the benefits of a "fast" lens. I hope to be able to replace my 100-400L by next spring, but I think a 400 f2.8 might happen before that, and a 300 f2.8 and a 1DMark II and a ....................help.

[Steve Foss]

You poor man. You've caught "L" and "1" disease, and a very bad case you've got. The 400 f2.8L is basically only a football/soccer lens for your purposes, unless you've got some indoor sports where you're quite a distance from the action. Particularly in sports, the versatility of a fast zoom is huge, and you've got Canon's best setup for that. Unless you're looking at the 400 f2.8L for wildlife, I'd for sure wait until you have a second body to buy that lens for sports work. You'll find that it limits you more than frees you because of the fixed focal length. So, while you have one body on the 400 on a tripod or monopod, you'll have the second body around your neck with the 70-200/1.4, and I think you'll find you take the huge majority of your fast-moving sports shots with the zoom.

However, a better wildlife lens than the 400 f2.8L has not been made. Make sure you have a rock of a tripod, though. It's a VERY heavy sucker. My muscles still remember the times I've carted that monster around. I'll take that kind of muscle fatigue any day.

I should add that Canon's 85mm f1.2L (yes, 1.2) is probably one of the most overlooked indoor sports lenses. It's so fast at that aperature that it redifines fast, and will easily allow enough light to pass through in indoor gyms to give you great speed flexibility in basketball, volleyball and gymnastics. It is a prime, so you don't have the focal length flexibility of a zoom, but that open aperature is amazing. You also have to take greater care with focus point, because at that aperature you don't have much depth of focus. I've shot it extensively on indoor/night band gigs, using simply the lighting provided by the bar/venue (no flash at all), and never needed to bump the iso past 400, and the images are tack sharp. Of course, at $1,500, it's a real investment, and I haven't bought it, just as I haven't bought the 70-200 f2.8, because I only shoot bands a couple times a year and only shoot indoor sports for a weekly newspaper. If, like Dbl, I did it for real moola, it would be at the top of my list. Of course, considering the number of images I'm starting to market to various bands, it may be in the cards yet.

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

You poor man. You've caught "L" and "1" disease, and a very bad case you've got. The 400 f2.8L is basically only a football/soccer lens for your purposes, unless you've got some indoor sports where you're quite a distance from the action.

---

Since the first day I shot an "L" I had the disease bad. And the "1" sickness is no better. That 400 f2.8 is fantastic for baseball, can't forget my favorite sport to shoot. Nothing quite like the shots you get from the outfield towards home. The 2.8 is as important for speed(night games) as it is for shallow depth of field, i.e. blurring the background from the distracting backgrounds prevelent at most sporting venues. It also places a higher demand as you mentioned on getting your focus dead on, the number of OOF's can begin to creep up.

Quote:

---

I should add that Canon's 85mm f1.2L (yes, 1.2) is probably one of the most overlooked indoor sports lenses. It's so fast at that aperature that it redifines fast, and will easily allow enough light to pass through in indoor gyms to give you great speed flexibility in basketball, volleyball and gymnastics. It is a prime, so you don't have the focal length flexibility of a zoom, but that open aperature is amazing. You also have to take greater care with focus point, because at that aperature you don't have much depth of focus. I've shot it extensively on indoor/night band gigs, using simply the lighting provided by the bar/venue (no flash at all), and never needed to bump the iso past 400, and the images are tack sharp. Of course, at $1,500, it's a real investment, and I haven't bought it, just as I haven't bought the 70-200 f2.8, because I only shoot bands a couple times a year and only shoot indoor sports for a weekly newspaper. If, like Dbl, I did it for real moola, it would be at the top of my list. Of course, considering the number of images I'm starting to market to various bands, it may be in the cards yet.

---

The 85 f1.8 is on my very short list for purchase in the next month or so. The 1.2L would be the cream, but 1.8 should work just fine for me, and of course the budget always wins in the end. Good to see Steve has a nice little wish list himself, come on pony up and make that lens pay for itself, after all its just the price of a new shotgun Of course with all the shooting opportunities new glass can provide, who will have time to fish, hunt and take advantage of the best time of the year? Plus, how can we afford to pay for those trips with all this money tied up in camera gear? Sigh I apologize in advance to 3pronghook for letting this wander off the topic of macros.

[Steve Foss]

Dbl: I'm working at it man, I'm working at it! So far, the photo income has helped keep the wolf from the door in the high-cost-of-living, low-pay environment of Ely. I'm hoping it'll be able to pay for some more lens acquisitions soon, but our computers are on the low end of the RAM/processor scale, our programs are one or two generations old, and if I buy a new body, I'll need to upgrade CS to CS2 to get a RAW plug-in that works, and CS2 demands more RAM than CS, so I'll have to buy more RAM . . .

You know how it works. Auughh!

Now, how about those macro lenses. 3prong, was that advice any help at all before Dbl and I demonstrated how easily one can fall off the deep end?

[Swimmer]

You guys are giving me Pe...I mean "L" envy with just the lenses (or is it "Lenz"s) you already own (or have shot). I'm pretty impressed with Buzzsaw's images...do you guys know what lens he usually shoots?

Dan, which Ntl Camera? I may have to take a peek...

[Steve Foss]

If my memory hasn't failed me, Buzz shoots a Nikon zoom that goes out to 400mm. Not sure its low end, though, or the aperature capabilities or whether it has vibration reduction. Buzzy?

[buzzsaw]

Buzzy signin' in..... I shoot the Nikon D200 with mainly the 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 AF VR lens (Vibration reduction) the VR is supposed to be able to get you down three stops in good light. the lens has it's strengths and weaknesses... it is extremely sharp between F7.1 to F11 and most reviews say F11 is it's sharpest. It's slow focusing on far away subjects like birds in flight. I still wish they would have made this lens with the silent wave motor. All in all a very good lens that competes well with other prime glass. One more thing, I am using a tripod almost exclusively for my photo's these days and alot of time even use a cable release.... it makes a difference.

[Dbl]

Swimmer,

I live about 3 miles from the Golden Valley store, but I have been dealing with the Maple Grove location. It may be gone already, they usually don't last more than a day or so when it comes to "L" glass. I did not see it on their inventory list on the web site. It wouldn't hurt to take a look if you are in that direction though they say their web site is updated a couple of times a day. I see G.V. has a 24-70 f/2.8 L if you are looking for a nice walk around lens, and they have a 1D rated at E+ I've been watching for about two weeks. I really need to stay away from the internet.

I think buzz would be taking nice photos no matter what equipment he has in his hands, even Canon or Pentax

[buzzsaw]

Awww, thanks Dan! You get something in your mind that you want to accomplish and you just go after it.

P.S. I was oh so close to being a Canon guy

[Steve Foss]

Talent is in the hand, eye, heart and hands of the photographer, not the equipment.

[Swimmer]

Dan: I actually have the fantasy FB draft tomorrow (I know, auction AFTER the season starts...makes sense though to the grizzled), the 13th year with almost the same 14 guys, and with a keg of Summit and three dudes flying in from the coasts for the day, I will not be venturing to National cam tommorow. Thanks for the info though...would've been fun to shoot DAN'S lens though (I did some more dp. com forum searchs, and this lense seams like the bomb for versatility and quality/sharpness in a non-prime big lens. I still have problems picturing me hauling a 95# lens around though (just kidding).

Some good words on that site about a Sigma 75-300 f/2.8 w/ teleconverter 1.4, w/ comparisons equal to 100-400L...hard to believe. I think that combo would be about 2 hundi less than the 1/4L...hardly worth it and no IS.(?).

We had a group of 4+ Flickers in the M. Ash in 6:30 PM light here tonight and the Tamrom 28-75, obviously, was not adequate w/30d. I even set up the tripod and remote trigger, but not close enough. I yearn.

Thanks guys, and wish me luck in the draft. Let's see... Willie Parker and his points...tempting.

Buzz, so that's it...nothing to do with the eye, it is all equipment??? Just kidding, your work is great, with time and tripod (and remote switch), and MH Park, you have demonstrated that IT is possible. Just think what you could do with an "L" in your name.?

Too many beers.

[buzzsaw]

Thanks Swimmer! I've said it before and I'll say it again... I've learned alot in a short time from being around others who are willing to tell me what to do to maximize my equipment... also, the internet (Google) is a very powerful tool as well. I frequent about five other photo only sites (DBL knows and shows on a few of them) and you can learn so much by asking questions and then practicing with your camera and before you know it you've gotten more efficient and just plain better... with that being said, I have sooooo much more to learn about other types of photography... night shots, Infrared photography, Landscape shots and so on. It's actually a humbling hobby when your sitting at your computer doing the post processing. back to what you said..

Quote:

---

Buzz, so that's it...nothing to do with the eye, it is all equipment??? Just kidding, your work is great, with time and tripod (and remote switch), and MH Park, you have demonstrated that IT is possible.

---

that part of it is just figuring out/scouting area's and setting up where the sun is your friend and getting up at the early hours to get that golden morning light... I haven't done as much at dusk yet. I also have a fantasy football draft this morning up in Maple Grove (50 minute drive - ouch) and was hoping to get out this morning for an hour or so but no sun.

P.S. Never too many beers.

[3pronghook]

Canoga was out of stock, but did find one at buydig for 459. thanks for the advise. it appears to be what i was looking for. regarding the older tamron lenses i am using; am i going to get better quality photos with lenses designed for digital cameras?

[Swimmer]

I don't know if this is a good deal, but I just checked Craigs List under electronics and someone is selling a 1Ds and 28-75 lens for $2190. I heard mention earlier that some folks might be interested in this model. Sorry 3pronghook, again, for hijacking your thread.

[Steve Foss]

Quote:

---

am i going to get better quality photos with lenses designed for digital cameras?

---

Generally, yes, with consumer grade lenses. But lots of top glass from Nikon, Canon and a few others was developed for film use and has not been redesigned since digital came on the scene big.

[Swimmer]

Steve, a question. Does Canon make a non-IS 300mm/4 L prime? I like the quality of the images from the "affordable" 300mm/4 L, even with 1.4TCII.

[Steve Foss]

No swimmer, they don't. The only supertelephoto prime they still make in the non-IS category is the 400L f5.6. They make a 200L f2.8 non-IS, however, that with a 1.4 TC would get you just under 300mm at f4.