07-07-2016, 10:49 PM
Hi Arthur,
I still have my old Pentax analog equipment as well, barring one I got in 1995 or thereabouts, and two zoom lenses, which I sold on as Pentax was not as good anymore by then as it used to be
.
I had a lot of macro equipment for that system too, including an auto-bellows and the 100 F/4 macro, lots of tubes, etc. etc. I also have a few tubes for my Canon EOS system, two sets actually. In addition, I used to do a lot of micro-photography and extreme macro-photography, using mostly Leitz equipment, and my trusted Pentaxes back then .
The Canon 100 non-L I never liked because I did not like the way it rendered, and I also didn't like the extreme shortening of FL at close focusing distances - It goes from 100 mm to approximately 72 mm when going from infinity to 1:1. The 100L shortens even slightly more, and although it does render slightly better than the non-IS, at close focusing distances in not-so-bright light it does not render too well, and does not auto-focus too well either, IME anyway. The 100-400L did better IMO, both focusing at MFD and beyond, and has a much nicer rendering. This is what helped deciding for me to get my second 100-400L <ROFL>.
I also found at the time that the 135L rendered much more nicely for macro purposes, to me anyway. And having a 100 macro and never using it because I did not like it meant I eventually sold it . The 180L is a lot better in this regard, although it also shortens considerably at 1:1. This is really a problem with IF macro lenses. It is nice they do not get (much) longer, but that is at the cost of distance to the subject.
As to the TS-E's - they are one of the reasons why I went with Canon at the time, I always wanted to shoot with those, and I am lucky enough to own all 4 current ones. One of the images I use to show people what you can do with a TS-E is the following shot:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
That was shot with the TS-E F/3.5L (Mk I), F/3.5, on a 400D. As you can see, the bokeh, even with this wideangle lens, although used as a short standard lens equivalent, is just stunning. It is just as stunning at F/8, BTW. It will also fit the shortest extension tube, although you get really close to the front lens, especially when tilted.
The Mk II is even better, BTW, even though I haven't tried it with an extension tube yet. As are the 45 and 90 variants.
Kind regards, Wim
I still have my old Pentax analog equipment as well, barring one I got in 1995 or thereabouts, and two zoom lenses, which I sold on as Pentax was not as good anymore by then as it used to be
.I had a lot of macro equipment for that system too, including an auto-bellows and the 100 F/4 macro, lots of tubes, etc. etc. I also have a few tubes for my Canon EOS system, two sets actually
. In addition, I used to do a lot of micro-photography and extreme macro-photography, using mostly Leitz equipment, and my trusted Pentaxes back then .The Canon 100 non-L I never liked because I did not like the way it rendered, and I also didn't like the extreme shortening of FL at close focusing distances - It goes from 100 mm to approximately 72 mm when going from infinity to 1:1. The 100L shortens even slightly more, and although it does render slightly better than the non-IS, at close focusing distances in not-so-bright light it does not render too well, and does not auto-focus too well either, IME anyway. The 100-400L did better IMO, both focusing at MFD and beyond, and has a much nicer rendering. This is what helped deciding for me to get my second 100-400L <ROFL>.
I also found at the time that the 135L rendered much more nicely for macro purposes, to me anyway
. And having a 100 macro and never using it because I did not like it meant I eventually sold it . The 180L is a lot better in this regard, although it also shortens considerably at 1:1. This is really a problem with IF macro lenses. It is nice they do not get (much) longer, but that is at the cost of distance to the subject.As to the TS-E's - they are one of the reasons why I went with Canon at the time, I always wanted to shoot with those, and I am lucky enough to own all 4 current ones. One of the images I use to show people what you can do with a TS-E is the following shot:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
That was shot with the TS-E F/3.5L (Mk I), F/3.5, on a 400D. As you can see, the bokeh, even with this wideangle lens, although used as a short standard lens equivalent, is just stunning. It is just as stunning at F/8, BTW. It will also fit the shortest extension tube, although you get really close to the front lens, especially when tilted
.The Mk II is even better, BTW, even though I haven't tried it with an extension tube yet. As are the 45 and 90 variants
.Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
