[Arthur Macmillan]

Brightcolours...BTW, were you joking about preferring the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4?  Because if I seem a bit dense it is because I do know people who prefer most non IS lenses over the IS ones.  Klaus, if I recall stated that the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 macro had a superior bokeh to the newer image stabilized version.  I was actually a little worried about it.  But, to be honest I would even get IS with the 90mm f/2.8 (probably).  For the price the non-stabilized one is a steal!  And it was my favorite lens when I owned it.  But I always wished it had IS ( or VC).  It's always a trade off!

[wim]

The 70-200 F/4L, non-IS, is actually better at MFD, and way better at (ab)using for macro than the IS version is.

 

The IS version generally is a little sharper than the non-IS version, and has IS, obviously, but at MFD and when used for macro the non-IS version is clearly better.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Arthur Macmillan]

I'm pretty sure for me it would be only be better if it was on a tripod.  One of my first shots with the lens was a Cerceris wasp on a canopy of white carrot flowers.  These have been somewhat challenging subjects in the past, even with 60 and 180mm macro lenses.  But my very first shot produced a very decent result at f/6.3 and ISO 200. 


I asked the question because of the emoticon.  Far from clarifying, I was wondering if he was happy with his lens, laughing at my choice (heaven forbid!) or congratulating me on having chosen a very sharp and versatile lens.  I'm fine with any of those reactions, just curious, that's all.

 

I'm probably not as much a perfectionist as the average photographer.  My motto is:  "I'm a perfectionist, but not very good at it!"

[Arthur Macmillan]

@ The Mad Dutchman:  I didn't mean to click your profile, but glad I did.  You have much more expertise than I do!  I am impressed to see you have adopted the Micro Four Thirds format.  I think it would be a very nice portable system, but let's face it, it ain't exactly inexpensive if you go for the native pro level lenses!

 

My original premise that I may as well have full frame since most of my lenses are full frame anyway is starting to crumble.  I still think FF is superior on the whole, except for the fact that you either toss all your EF-s lenses, or you maintain two systems.   Probably I'll eventually get a FF camera. 

 

It's to bad about having the Mad Dutchman appellation hung on you.  Maybe we could campaign for having it modified to "Eccentric Dutchman"?

[toni-a]

@ The Mad Dutchman: 

 

It's to bad about having the Mad Dutchman appellation hung on you.  Maybe we could campaign for having it modified to "Eccentric Dutchman"?

 

I am bot  a big fan of appellations and nicknames, however reading wim posts, I never found him mad even when being trolled he showed a lot of patience explaining  and explaining while the others refuse to understand.

I find he has a lot of knowledge to share, and a lot of experience in photography and lenses

[Brightcolours]

Brightcolours...BTW, were you joking about preferring the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4?  Because if I seem a bit dense it is because I do know people who prefer most non IS lenses over the IS ones.  Klaus, if I recall stated that the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 macro had a superior bokeh to the newer image stabilized version.  I was actually a little worried about it.  But, to be honest I would even get IS with the 90mm f/2.8 (probably).  For the price the non-stabilized one is a steal!  And it was my favorite lens when I owned it.  But I always wished it had IS ( or VC).  It's always a trade off!

The IS version is weather sealed, has a tad faster AF, and is sharper. The old non-IS version is better at MFD and past MFD (extension tubes), and it renders smoother hence the nicer bokeh.

 

So, unless IS is needed, I do prefer the non-L. It is a personal choice.

[wim]

@ The Mad Dutchman:  I didn't mean to click your profile, but glad I did.  You have much more expertise than I do!  I am impressed to see you have adopted the Micro Four Thirds format.  I think it would be a very nice portable system, but let's face it, it ain't exactly inexpensive if you go for the native pro level lenses!

 

My original premise that I may as well have full frame since most of my lenses are full frame anyway is starting to crumble.  I still think FF is superior on the whole, except for the fact that you either toss all your EF-s lenses, or you maintain two systems.   Probably I'll eventually get a FF camera. 

 

It's to bad about having the Mad Dutchman appellation hung on you.  Maybe we could campaign for having it modified to "Eccentric Dutchman"?

 



 

I basically use both FF and MFT these days (been using MFT for 5 or 6 years now). When carrying around FF gets too much I always have the MFT system with me. The last couple of months I do have to travel a lot for work, which means the MFT system . However, I often have 1 or 2 EF lenses with me as well, with the Metabones adapter. It really is amazing what you can do with an 85L and a Metabones adapter on MFT, and as it becomes an approximately 110 mm lens equivalent once all factor conversions are done, to me it is an even better lens for portraits than it normally is (I prefer 100-120mm equivalent for portraits).

 

Inexpensive it is not, but considering my FF glass, when going for equivalents, it is still cheaper, and generally a lot lighter. So far that is how I selected my glass: good and lighter than FF (apart from the stuff that came with the camera, but then, that way I also have a selection of even lighter body/lens combinations ).

 

Essentially, 4x the noise is not a problem to me, compared to the most modern FF cameras. I did make a couple of 60 cm x 90 cm prints from some of my old Canon 350D quite successfully .

 

In the end, it is about taking pictures, and having a camera when you want to take pictures si always better than having none, plus, MFT really has come of age.

 

As to my nick: I carry it with pride . I was awarded this nickname during a 5-year stay in the UK, quite a while ago already by now, by some friends of mine. It was awarded to me after literally rolling on the floor with laughter, for about an hour, in an open office environment with about 200 people.

 

Kindest regards, Wim

[wim]

I am bot  a big fan of appellations and nicknames, however reading wim posts, I never found him mad even when being trolled he showed a lot of patience explaining  and explaining while the others refuse to understand.

I find he has a lot of knowledge to share, and a lot of experience in photography and lenses

 

Thank you for your kind words, toni-a, much appreciated!

 

Kindest regards, Wim

[wim]

The IS version is weather sealed, has a tad faster AF, and is sharper. The old non-IS version is better at MFD and past MFD (extension tubes), and it renders smoother hence the nicer bokeh.

 

So, unless IS is needed, I do prefer the non-L. It is a personal choice.

 

I completely agree. This is my experience exactly. And it always is a personal choice, indeed.

 

BTW, the 135L is a great lens for macro as well.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

I'm pretty sure for me it would be only be better if it was on a tripod.  One of my first shots with the lens was a Cerceris wasp on a canopy of white carrot flowers.  These have been somewhat challenging subjects in the past, even with 60 and 180mm macro lenses.  But my very first shot produced a very decent result at f/6.3 and ISO 200. 


I asked the question because of the emoticon.  Far from clarifying, I was wondering if he was happy with his lens, laughing at my choice (heaven forbid!) or congratulating me on having chosen a very sharp and versatile lens.  I'm fine with any of those reactions, just curious, that's all.

 

I'm probably not as much a perfectionist as the average photographer.  My motto is:  "I'm a perfectionist, but not very good at it!"

 

Hi Arthur,

 

Before I forget: the ideal way to photograph fast moving critters, or macro at high level magnification, is with a flash, or a few flashes.

I have a large, old (Vivitar 283) flash bracket, which I use to mount the main flash body. This is a ring flash, so the flash itself is mounted separately, around the front of the lens (it actually is an old Cokin system, which I got for almost free; I trigger it remotely as it was not designed for digital, even though it is mounted to the camera), You could also use a few small flashes, one triggered by the camera, and one or two by slave triggers or remote connections. Just mount them in some way around the lens. These flashes need not to be high power. At these close distances they often are too bright. Darkening, if necessary (beyond anything that the flash controls are capable of), can be done by affixing one or more pieces of paper . You just need to experiment a bit.

 

Anyway, the neat thing about the flash bracket is that it has a handle, and together with the body shape it means I can comfortably hold it with two hands, quite sturdily. I set the focus manually, effectively to a specific magnification I am after. What I do next is just move closer, a bit like using a camera under water, until I get focus, then sway slightly backwards and forwards, and push the shutter button when I have acceptable focus (I use the OVF to check focus). I repeat this a few times, and I will always have a sharp shot that way.

 

A tripod is not necessarily the way to go with quick moving critters, as they do move away when you come too close, plus a good tripod with camera tends to be cumbersome to set up correctly, let alone quickly. Also, use a lens as long as possible to do these type of shots, exactly because of this.

 

I happen to be a perfectionist, but am practical too, most of the time anyway , so I try to find solutions, create them myself, if need be . I rarely shoot macro from a tripod these days, unless there is no other way or if I am working in a studio type environment .

 

As to macro lenses: I will use any lens to shoot macro if I can help it, but will stick to those that work well. I was never very satisfied with the Canon 100 USM, and did not like the 100L either. I did like the EF-S 60 when I had that, the 50 F/2.5 CM, be it for specific purposes, as it is rather short, and I used the 70-200 F/4L in the past, when I still had it, and also the 70-200 F/4L IS, but I was never satisfied with that for close-up and macro, while the non-IS did very well indeed. I also liked the 100-400 L a lot for macro when I still had that. With a Canon 500D close-up lens it gives excellent quality, and goes from 1:0.25 to 1:1 just by zooming (for long lenses you are better off using a good close-up lens than extension tubes, if simply because of the large extensions required otherwise ).

 

These days when I shoot macro I use the 50L, 135L, 180L Macro, MP-E 65, TS-E 45, and TS-E 90. The 50L may not be as sharp as the 135L, but the rendering is out of this world for macro. The 135L is just good at anything, and the 180L is one beautiful lens for macro (and for general shooting, even if it is not very fast).  The MP-E 65 ws designed for macro only; effectively it is a lens with built-in bellows, and it handles an extender very well too. The TS-Es generally work extremely well at MFD, just that the shorter ones get problematic with extension tubes, obviously. What a lot of people do not know, is that both back- and foreground bokeh with the TS-Es is totally out of this world, the sharpness decrease is always gradual, whatever the back- or foreground. Where grass blades ay give funny effects, f.e., even with lenses known for their good bokeh, these lenses just give magnificent blur.

 

With MFT I normally use my PanaLeica 45 for macro, and it is a great lens at that too. I tend to have that with me most of the time when I am going light.

 

Anyway, some thoughts and ideas.

 

HTH, kind regards, Wim