| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 3,095 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
OK, I am officially jealous. You'd better take that thing outdoors - with IS, it's probably the finest outdoor 1:1 lens made. One thing you'll enjoy, if it's anything like all the non-IS models I've owned, is that it'll autofocus exactly where you want it, every time. Including coins.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4132 Posts |
OK, I did just take it outside in some adverse light (evening with semi-threatening clouds - no I didn't stay out long). I have to go through the photos. A couple first impressions:
The IS is not really "loud", but it was loud enough to be alarming at first. The kit lens makes some quiet clicks that maybe you can hear if your ear is up against it. The L makes whirring and clicking noises, clearly audible in my bedroom (only sound is my quiet-ish computer). If you were in a tomb or something, the people near you would notice (though I guess the shutter is a lot louder and they'd notice that too.) The IS works though. When I go to focus, the image in the viewfinder suddenly looks like it got plunked in vat of molasses.
The auto-focus is very quiet, but I guess I wouldn't call it silent. It's a lot quieter than the IS. I guess it's fast for a macro lens, but even with the limiters and the ring USM, it's a lot slower than the nifty fifty or the kit lens. In indoor light it sometimes just gets lost if it has a long way to travel, but since it's got full-time-manual, you can very quickly get it close then the auto works really well.
It's heaver than all my other lenses combined. I am going to have to work on my hand-holding technique so I don't blow out my left shoulder. I'm not a couch potato, so I'm a bit more impressed by people who hand-hold big teles for sports and stuff.
The hood is probably a lot bigger than it needs to be, but at least it's included with the lens. The prices for hoods you have to buy separately are criminal. Canon needs to get in the ball with the center-pinch style lens-caps. At least the hood goes on and off easily.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Alright, I was working in some pretty adverse conditions, and I was in a hurry because I didn't want to tempt those dark clouds with my new gear. I also forgot how thin the depth of field is at close-up and macro distances at f/2.8 wide open. So these don't represent what the lens can actually do. 
Flowers by CaptainFwiffo, on Flickr
Flowers by CaptainFwiffo, on Flickr
Flowers by CaptainFwiffo, on FlickrOh yeah, coins! 
1956-D Lincoln Wheat cent (whole coin) by CaptainFwiffo, on Flickr
1956-D Lincoln Wheat cent (max magnification) by CaptainFwiffo, on Flickr
1956-D Lincoln Wheat cent (100% crop at max magnification) by CaptainFwiffo, on FlickrI shot these at f/5.6 to match what I normally shoot at with the 75ARD1 most of the time, and that's pretty close to where the sweet-spot should be for both these lenses. I've done fairly minimal processing, basically just the defaults I have set up for coins. The lens actually shortens to 75mm at closest focus because it's internally focusing. So the working distance on the "high" position on my microscope stand is completely usable for small coins. It's not out over the center of the specimen area though, so I can't get my normal lighting configuration in there. It's also got way less range both at the high and low end of magnification compared to the bellows. So I wouldn't be able to use it for large coins or for varieties without adding extra height or some sort of extension respectively. |
|
Moderator
United States
15522 Posts |
I am but a neophyte at photography ... but recognize a great image when I see it.
Hoping to see more of these great photos from you Captn ...
David
Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8521 Posts |
Wow !
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2448 Posts |
Very nice! I see I'll have to upgrade my 83mm Macro.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1064 Posts |
Really great photos, if ONLY I had the money...  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I have the measly ultrasonic version, I couldn't imagine having the IS version of this lens. The IS lenses seems to be the choice of photographers that use Canon cameras but their price keeps people like me away from them because even in used condition they can be over a thousand dollars
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
The L version is microscopically sharper than the original, but the differences are pretty much only measurable with instrumentation. The premium is due only to IS and the cachet of the red ring. For someone who is going to do handheld macro, the value is obvious but for the specific purpose of coin photography I don't think it's justifiable. Mind you, effective IS in a dedicated Macro lens is quite a technical achievement. Of course, with IS you could probably dispense with a copystand and shoot coins handheld, but that would make you *such* a showoff.... |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
As the guy who actually bought the lens, I have to agree with Dave. I think my bellows setup is better than this lens (and far cheaper) for the specific purpose of photographing coins.
The main reason I got this particular lens was because I had just broken up with my girlfriend and was feeling really mopey and self-indulgent. If I was in a prudent mood, I would have gotten the Tokina 100mm macro. But instead I ate up my lens budget and my 1916-D budget. Oh well, at least I get to make SuperDave jealous.
The truth is that all the macro lenses (true macro lenses, defined as primes that focus at 1:1) are excellent. There are no bad ones. The differences in optical performance are tiny. The main differences are going to be in features that are not actually a big factor for close macro distances or coin photography (autofocus speed, IS, build quality, price, etc.)
But since I got the lens (I did want a lens to use as a walk-around macro as well as a general-purpose 100mm prime for portraits and things), I had to test it on coins, didn't I?
Edited by CaptainFwiffo
09/15/2012 4:12 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
The truth is that all the macro lenses (true macro lenses, defined as primes that focus at 1:1) are excellent. There are no bad ones. The differences in optical performance are tiny. The main differences are going to be in features that are not actually a big factor for close macro distances or coin photography (autofocus speed, IS, build quality, price, etc.)
But since I got the lens (I did want a lens to use as a walk-around macro as well as a general-purpose 100mm prime for portraits and things), I had to test it on coins, didn't I?
Then you have the best choice possible for your needs, and it's good to hear. For *any* purpose, there is no better 100mm prime, anywhere. And if you weren't already shooting bellows, it would stagger you with the quality of its' coin shots, wouldn't it? Even with all the stuff I have dedicated to shooting coins, I would snag one of those in an instant if I had the spare cash. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Yeah, the quality of the coin shots is excellent. The biggest problem with it for a coin lens is mostly the ergonomics on a small stand, and the range of magnifications available. Weather closing in on me again today, but I did get out for a little bit: 
Lizard by CaptainFwiffo, on FlickrA close look will reveal the reflection of your humble photographer and the palm tree behind him. 
Lizard (crop) by CaptainFwiffo, on Flickr |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Wow--great results!  |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
Yeah, the quality of the coin shots is excellent. The biggest problem with it for a coin lens is mostly the ergonomics on a small stand, and the range of magnifications available. Both true. I will, however, contend that no bellows-based solution is better for full-face images of a coin (intended for posting full-face) than the Canon 100mm's, partly because of the small-stand ergonomics. They leave *no* lighting solution off the table, and will shoot within a few percentage points of their best regardless of how you choose to light. It is only when you exceed 0.5x magnification that a bellows becomes advantageous, and that capability is the only reason I switched, wanting an all-in-one solution. And if you *do* need magnification beyond what it will offer, a combination of a cheap ~35mm duplicating lens/bellows from ebay is not only highly competitive with a USB microscope in terms of price, but kicks its' butt in terms of image quality. I'm writing this not for you, Cap'n - you already know this - but for those who are wondering about this lens for the first time. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5838 Posts |
Exceptional quality I say, its like looking at objects under a microscope and captures it as one sees it.
If ever I get involve in photography, this is what I be getting.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 17 / Views: 3,095 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 09/14/2012 7:05 pm
