Question about macro lenses used as primes

gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
edited February 28, 2005 in Accessories
Guys ive searched but havnt found the answer i understand. If you have a macro 100mm 1:1 f/2.8 for example & use it as a prime lens for say a wedding etc.

How does the 1:1 react in shooting this way ? Will it crop the shot more that if you had just a normal 100mm prime ? (100mm prime may not exist but using it as an example)

Gus

Comments

  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2005
    It works just like any other 100mm prime. The Canon version of the 100/2.8 is really really sharp. You need to keep that in mind if you decide to shoot portraits with it, cuz every single pimple, clogged pore, and nosehair will be sharp as a tack.
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2005
    fish wrote:
    cuz every single pimple, clogged pore, and nosehair will be sharp as a tack.

    nod.gifnod.gif and nod.gif

    go to action central and download daniel chui's soft focus actions, they do wonders...
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2005
    Ta mate...so then using them with TC x1.4/ x2 wouldnt be out of the question as a small amount of softening might be a good thing in portraits ?

    Understanding of course that this will slow the lens a stop or 2.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2005
    andy wrote:
    nod.gifnod.gif and nod.gif

    go to action central and download daniel chui's soft focus actions, they do wonders...
    Hell...there is a fix for everything cept herpes in here. Thanks andy.
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2005
    goose, I don't believe the 1.4 or 2x converters will work on the 100mm 2.8 lens. They're only designed to work on a limited number of zoom and large prime lenses.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2005
    wxwax wrote:
    goose, I don't believe the 1.4 or 2x converters will work on the 100mm 2.8 lens. They're only designed to work on a limited number of zoom and large prime lenses.
    yeah ta.. i considered that after i posted. Still with 1.6x sensor blah blah blah..it gives a good distance.

    Put an order in for that 350D yet ?
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    yeah ta.. i considered that after i posted. Still with 1.6x sensor blah blah blah..it gives a good distance.

    Put an order in for that 350D yet ?
    Oh sure, 100mm is a terrific focal distance for a 1.6x. 160mm, duh. But...since you'll have a 70-200/2.8 IS already on yer camera, you can hit and run right past it in both directions :D

    I also think the 70-200 is a far superior portrait lens than the 100 macro, for the reasons I mentioned above. Not that the lens isn't sharp...it is, and actually rivals a lot of primes...just that the overall image quality out of that zoom is so sexy silky smooth, it just makes you want to lick your monitor.



    :uhoh






    hmmm...i reckon I ought to take a couple of comparison shots with both the 100/2.8 macro and the 70-200/2.8 @ 100 so you can see what I mean. Maybe if it's not raining tomorrow, I'll do that for ya. It'll only cost you one 64oz beer. It probably won't be a portrait, cuz I can't get people to sit still while I swap lenses, but I'll try to set up a still life that gives you an idea of sharpness, smoothness, and bokeh.

    on the other hand, the 100/2.8 macro is a great macro lens, and the 70-200 isn't.
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2005
    fish wrote:
    ...just that the overall image quality out of that zoom is so sexy silky smooth, it just makes you want to lick your monitor.

    just thinking about it makes me 14326032-Ti.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • REECEPHOTOREECEPHOTO Registered Users Posts: 107 Major grins
    edited February 28, 2005
    Me and the new sigma 150 2.8 macro will be getting married this spring.clap.gif
    Cant wait...................:D :D:D
    Watch out all winged and 6 leged creatures here I come.
    It's not the speed that'll kill ya
    It's the sudden stops!
    http://reecephoto.smugmug.com
    http://www.danasoft.com/sig/JeffReece.jepg
    src="http//www.danasoft.com/sig/JeffReece.jpg">
  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited February 28, 2005
    REECEPHOTO wrote:
    Me and the new sigma 150 2.8 macro will be getting married this spring.clap.gif
    Cant wait...................:D :D:D
    Watch our all winged and 6 leged creatures here I come.
    I'm anxiously waiting for more reviews to pop up on this lens... keep us posted for sure!
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

Sign In or Register to comment.