Official Canon Gear Thread

[jefg99]

Reggie,

Unless I get one tomorrow (birthday..no presents, please) I'd love to get yours. As you upgrade, I really enjoying taking things off your hands. 

Jeff

UPDATE: I got this lens from Reggie...it's always nice saving a buck or two...thank you Reggie!

[jefg99]

After vowing not to buy a myriad of lens for my XTi (after all, I have the versatility of my G9), I'm now thinking I need to allow for some macro work. Does anyone know about extension tubes versus dedicated macro lenses? I'm looking at the EF 12 II Extension tube or EF 25 Extension tube, which seem to allow for options with different lenses, at about 1/4th or 1/3rd the cost of a macro lens. Any thoughts?

[Brian Keifer]

I have a set of tubes but haven't had a chance to work with them a whole lot just yet.  From my research though, it seems the Kenko or Promaster tubes are pretty much identical in function to the Canon brand tubes at a fraction of the price.

[Ken K.]

Jeff,

You can certainly go with the extension tube and the lens you have and generate pleasing results.  What a dedicated macro lens will give you over this arrangement is:

• working distance: you will not be able to get as close as with a dedicated macro
• perspective:  you will include more field of view with, for example, a 50mm with the ET vs a 100 mm macro, which is not usually desired for macro
• light falls off pretty quiclky with the ET, 1.5 stops I believe.  So with your 18-55 f3.5 you start out at ~f6.3 
  

All that said I have the Canon 100mm macro lens that I also use with the 12 mm ET which helps me get real close.

One thing to keep in mind if you consider a macro lens:  these lenses can be either "internally focusing" or "externally focusing".  When a lens is externally focusing the front element moves in and out to achieve focus, while on a internal focusing lens the front element is stationary and elements inside move to achieve focus.  Why is this important?  Because as the front element moves in and out it changes (albeit slightly) your composition.  If you wish to combine images in PS and the composition has changed slightly that is a problem.

Hope this helps. 

Ken

[jefg99]

Thanks Brian. I've been looking at the reviews of the other brands, and while for the most part they are good, there have been issues with "bad" copies re the fit. It's tough deciding which items you can go off-brand and which you should rely on the manufacturer. I've not yet decided.

Ken, yes, it is helpful. The more information I read the better my decision (hopefully). I'm leaning towards the tube(s) for (1) cost...$80-130 [and less if I don't go with Canon] versus $370 or more, (2) macro isn't my primary focus and I don't like carrying a lot of equipment, and (3) unless I'm not understanding the concept, I can mount this with a number of my lenses. The reviews have been pretty good.

[Ed V]

I realize this is an older post so I don't know what you ultimately decided re: tubes, if anything. But let me throw my two cents worth in anyway. I do a lot of macro (or at least closeup) photography with (wild)flowers and such. It really is a lot of fun. If you can swing it, a dedicated macro lens is the way to go. The good news is that most lens manufacturer's are making excellent macro lenses. The Canon lenses (60mm, 100mm and 180mm) are excellent. I am using Sigma macro lenses (I have both the 70mm and the 150mm). And I know folks who use the Tamron and Tokina macro lenses and love them. OK enough about macro lenses.

You are talking about extension tubes. They can also work well. Not as well as a dedicated lens but good enough that most could not tell the difference. As you probably already know, the degree of magnification is determined by the length of the tubes vis a vis the focal length of the lens. To get 1:1 magnification, you need 50mm of tubes for a 50mm lens. A 25mm tube will get you half way there - closeup but not 1:1 macro. The Canon tubes are very nice. Expensive but nice. And Canon air is no better than Kenko or Promaster. I have a set of Kenko tubes and they work just fine. If memory serves the set of three includes a 12mm, 20mm and 36mm. So you have more flexibility.

One other possibility that you may consider is the Canon 500D closeup lens (Canon calls it a lens but it is really a filter) that attaches to the front of the lens you are using and gives you about 50% magnification. Now I am fortunate that other than my lenses that are already macro, all my lenses take a 77mm filter so I carry the 500D around with me when I am carry my non-macro, general photography backpack. I find I use it most often with my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. The 500D does a real nice job as far as I am concerned.

Anyway, just wanted to add a little more fuel to fire! 

[Lori]

I am thinking about getting a Canon AE-1.  Anyone ever use this camera?  Like the results? 

[diddee]

Film Lori?  You are braver than me.

[Lori]

Yeah, Film.  I feel like I completely missed out "growing up" in the digital world.  I took several classes in dark room development and want to get a dark room started in my basement...I love b/w portraits done on film, and as an art I know I could run wild with the different opportunites that film presents.  So, if anyone has old dark room equipment they no longer want and willing to sell, let me know!  Seriously!

[Nick D]

Well I did it. I joined the Canon group, or as Scot would say went to the dark side. I bought a very little used 50D for a good price and have 100-400L ordered. i can add one more lens in $500-$700 range. I am trying to choose between UWA: Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or 12-24, Sigma 10-20; or WA such as Tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8, Canon 17-40 f4L or something else in that range. The one lens that has caught my eye is 17-55 2.8 IS, but it is a little over my price range. I would have to save up. However, that would leave me only one lens, the 100-400, not a very good lens to be on me all the time.

I would be open to suggestions from fellow Canon users in the club.

Sincerely,

nick

[Brian Keifer]

Congrats, Nick!

I'm really happy with the zoom line-up I've got right now:

Canon 100-400L
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS
Canon 24-70L
Canon 10-22

With the exception of 23mm, it gives me coverage of every focal length from 10-400, and all four lenses are amazing.  That said, the only one that fits into your current budget is the Canon 10-22.  It's a fantastic lens.  Looking at the pictures I took with it in Alaska for the first time was akin to a religious experience for me.  The colors and sharpness are excellent, but I can't help but think you'll find yourself either being too wide or too long with just that and the 100-400.

Could you swing the Canon 10-22 and the Canon 18-55 IS?  The 18-55 IS is the new standard kit lens with the Rebel bodies, and it's a very capable lens, particularly given the < $150 price point.  That'll get you a good range of coverage, and you'll take maybe a $25 loss if you decide to sell the 18-55 on the used market to upgrade your mid-range.

I've read great things about the 17-55 IS as well as the Tokina 11-16, but I've never used either of them myself. 

[Nick D]

Thanks Brian for your input. Before i go with the 18-55, I think I save a little more and go with the Tamron 17-50. I like the constaqnt 2.8 and have heard some god things about it. I was debating back and forth with 10--400 as opposed to the 2 sigmas, 12-400 and 150-500. Still bouncing back and forth and thinking about canceling that order go with to longer sigma, use the extra $400 and get the Tamron. I have used the 100-400 when i rented equipment and I really like the images. This guy was caught wide open at 400mm



The thing I worry about is the push/pull zoom.

Now I have been leaning heavily toward 10-22. Figuring it is summer and what I mostly shoot are landscapes and nature. I am missing a macro too. The other option I like are the 17-40L and 24-105L IS, both are f4. coming from Oly and after my memories of blurry pictures due to hand shake, anything over 50mm I want IS. There is so much I want but I need to go a little slow.

Nick

[Rootster]

Hey Nick.  I am looking for a buyer for my Tamron 17-50 2.8 Aspherical XR DI II with a promaster digital protective filter.  It's in execellent shape and only used a couple of times.  If you are interested, I'm asking $300.

I also have a Canon EF 75-300 4-5.6 with a promaster digital protective filter and a lens hood which is not sold with the lens.  This isn't IS, but it's very sharp.  I'm asking $150.

Thanks,
Reggie

[Nick D]

PMed you Reggie.

Nick

[diddee]

Nick - so what do you think of the Canon compared to your E-3?