Pro explanation needed, 1Ds III vs 1D IIII

[swjim]

The 100mm macros and 135L are really different tools. Since you said you need a macro, I would agree with Doug's recommendation to get the older version and put the savings towards another lens.

I felt like my 85mm f/1.8 really came to life on the 5D, you could pick one of those up along with the older 100mm macro for about the same price as the 100L. Just a thought...

What other lenses do you have and what types of improvements are you hoping to get with your new kit?

 

[Recty]

Buy the old, non-IS, macro and save that extra cash for another lens.

I was thinking of that, but I do a lot of walk around macro (I borrowed my brother's 100mm macro, the old one, for a long time and used it a lot) and I was thinking the IS would be very nice. The difference is only about $400 right now.

I'd like to actually see how much the IS helps out, but from reviews I've read it does seem to make a difference. Since not all my macro is taken on tripods, I'm thinking it would be a good thing.

The 100mm macros and 135L are really different tools. Since you said you need a macro, I would agree with Doug's recommendation to get the older version and put the savings towards another lens.

I felt like my 85mm f/1.8 really came to life on the 5D, you could pick one of those up along with the older 100mm macro for about the same price as the 100L. Just a thought...

What other lenses do you have and what types of improvements are you hoping to get with your new kit?

Yeah, I realize the 135 and the macro are different tools From what I read about the 135 it's just amazing and I'd like to get into candid photography, it's a great lens for that. I'll probably just stick to the macro for now though.

I currently own the 10-22 (which I'll sell if I dont go with the 7D and get the 5D Mk II, which is the current plan), the 50mm f/1.4 and the 100-400.

I'll probably sell the 10-22 and buy the 24-105 with the camera when I get it. If I really miss wide angle, I'll buy the 17-40. Depending on how happy I am with the 24-105, I might end up selling off my 50mm as well. Really, for most of the photography I do, having a 24-105 and a 100-400 is about all I need. I was also thinking about picking up the 24-70 f/2.8 again, I owned that for about 8 months and liked it. If I do that, I wont get the 24-105.

 

[BlueCorn]

IS isn't a panacea for macro. The issue is that they can only compensate for up/down and side/side motion. The problem with macro is forward/backward motion when you're dealing with hair thin DOF.

 

[Recty]

IS isn't a panacea for macro. The issue is that they can only compensate for up/down and side/side motion. The problem with macro is forward/backward motion when you're dealing with hair thin DOF.

True that.

I read through all the reviews on Amazon about the IS version of the 100mm macro, people seemed pretty impressed with the usefulness. Maybe I'll go ahead and do the online rental thing and try one out before buying.

 

[Jacob D]

You've covered a lot of ground in this thread with 3 or 4 bodies mentioned and quite a few lenses from fast primes to slow zooms. Have you actually put any kits together in your mind, or on paper?

What is your primary use going to be?

 

[Recty]

You've covered a lot of ground in this thread with 3 or 4 bodies mentioned and quite a few lenses from fast primes to slow zooms. Have you actually put any kits together in your mind, or on paper?

What is your primary use going to be?

I dont really have a primary use, that's why this is so hard to nail down.

I photograph fish tanks and actually make $$$ doing that.
I photograph birds for my own pleasure.
I photograph people for my own pleasure and would someday maybe soon like to make a little $$$ doing it.
I have a baby due (tomorrow but who knows, first one seems to always be a little overdue) and I want to get good pictures of her.
I like to do scenery shots as well.
I enjoy macro, I do little of it but I like to be able to do it.

So I'm looking for a jack of all trades camera, that's why I'm going to go with the 5D Mk II. It does everything I NEED it to do and it will do it well. Where I might prefer the 7D over it would be for bird photography but I dont NEED it for that.

That is why I'm considering the 135mm (baby photos) and for eventual weddings/people photography. I'll probably put that off though.

My "kit" right now would just be the 5D Mk II and the 24-105L, probably with the older 100mm macro added in but I'm not even sure about that.

 

[swjim]

Do you have any flash gear?

 

[Jacob D]

With so much variety it does make it tough to keep a small kit. It sounds like you're right about the 5D covering your bases, other than birding, but I'm sure people do it using the center point on servo.

I shoot almost all kids/families. FF is great to have for the high iso indoor work. I have found 85mm to be indispensable focal length on FF. Like you I was coming from a crop body and sold my last 50mm to get the 85/1.8 - which is a bargain of a lens. The 85L of course is one of the best Canon portrait lenses you can have, and probably has good enough AF for moving kids, but not fish (or BIF).

The 135L is one of the best EF Canon lenses period. I will never part with that lens. The focal length can be a little long but the look of the images made with that lens are unique (same look as the 85L and maybe the 200L... none of them have the typical Canon look).

For people those two lenses will be your bread and butter. I have owned the 24-105 and found it mostly useless as an indoor portrait lens. The average IQ and slow speed don't hold a candle to even the non-L primes. Outdoors it's ok, but once you have the primes you'll never reach for it. That is a lens I would choose, for example if I was going on a trip and wanted a single walk around lens.

The 17-40 on the other hand is a lens I often wish I had for the few times I'm trying my hand at landscape.

If you don't do a lot of macro shooting, why spend $500-1000 on a lens? A lot of hardcore macro nuts don't use modern glass anyhow. There are lots of options starting at $200 and down...

 

[Recty]

Do you have any flash gear?

I've got the 580 EXII flash and that is it.

With so much variety it does make it tough to keep a small kit. It sounds like you're right about the 5D covering your bases, other than birding, but I'm sure people do it using the center point on servo.

I shoot almost all kids/families. FF is great to have for the high iso indoor work. I have found 85mm to be indispensable focal length on FF. Like you I was coming from a crop body and sold my last 50mm to get the 85/1.8 - which is a bargain of a lens. The 85L of course is one of the best Canon portrait lenses you can have, and probably has good enough AF for moving kids, but not fish (or BIF).

The 135L is one of the best EF Canon lenses period. I will never part with that lens. The focal length can be a little long but the look of the images made with that lens are unique (same look as the 85L and maybe the 200L... none of them have the typical Canon look).

For people those two lenses will be your bread and butter. I have owned the 24-105 and found it mostly useless as an indoor portrait lens. The average IQ and slow speed don't hold a candle to even the non-L primes. Outdoors it's ok, but once you have the primes you'll never reach for it. That is a lens I would choose, for example if I was going on a trip and wanted a single walk around lens.

The 17-40 on the other hand is a lens I often wish I had for the few times I'm trying my hand at landscape.

If you don't do a lot of macro shooting, why spend $500-1000 on a lens? A lot of hardcore macro nuts don't use modern glass anyhow. There are lots of options starting at $200 and down...

For what it's worth, with my 50D I use center point focus on servo and do just fine, unless the 5D Mk II is a LOT worse in autofocus I'm not too worried about it.

I might end up selling my 50mm for the 85mm, it would be about the same focal length as I'm used to with using the 50mm on the 1.6 crop factor body. A little bit longer but not much.

I want the 24-105 for the same reasons you say it would be good, an average walkaround lens. I dont like switching lenses, despite the fact that I have an SLR camera I'd rather stick with one lens. I put on the lens I want when I decide to do some photography and if I can stick with that lens through the whole session, great. Most of my walkaround "stuff" I dont need AMAZING SUPER DOOPER prime quality images, just good images is all I'm shooting for and the 24-105 should provide that. I've looked at lots of sample photography using the 24-105 and it seems like more than enough of a lens for my needs.

What are you talking about for $200 or less that would do good macro photography? I'm all ears if it is a viable solution. With that said... I really liked the Canon 100mm macro I used for the better portion of a year and I'd buy it again just because I already know I can get great images with it.

 

[swjim]

Good to hear you have the 580, it's going to come in handy for your indoor baby shots. You might want to consider getting it off camera with some basic modifiers if you haven't already.

 

[Recty]

Good to hear you have the 580, it's going to come in handy for your indoor baby shots. You might want to consider getting it off camera with some basic modifiers if you haven't already.

I was debating buying either another 580 or else getting a 430 for off camera and so that I can have two strobes, one to fill flash from the front and one to provide some side lighting.

I'm probably going to have to learn how to use two flashes, I just realized I have no idea.

 

[Jacob D]

Go poke around some macro forums. You'll get alot more qualified advice there vs. user reviews on Amazon etc... There are lots of ways to shoot macro, especially if you want to do it only occasionally and on the cheap.

 

[kilroy217]

check out http://www.strobist.com for a load of great information on using off-camera flash.

 

[Recty]

Go poke around some macro forums. You'll get alot more qualified advice there vs. user reviews on Amazon etc... There are lots of ways to shoot macro, especially if you want to do it only occasionally and on the cheap.

Agreed. Unfortunately from what I've seen, cheap lenses tend to provide cheap results. Or, if you want to go cheap you have to do 5x the amount of work to get the photo right.

For me, I'd rather pay a little more now and have an "easier" time of it.

check out http://www.strobist.com for a load of great information on using off-camera flash.

Thanks. I've got that page bookmarked already, I've learned a lot from it, I read through it a couple times when I first got my 580.