10-09-2011, 03:16 PM
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1318127768' post='12233']
I will be most convinced if you have side-by-side, apple-to-apple comparison. All this talk sounds like those empty claims about film-quality, 3D effect etc etc... NONE of which has ever been demonstrated convincingly in a side-by-side proof.
[/quote]
Take my comments as you like.
Personally, as I made quite clear, I prefer the rendering of 50L and 135L with extension tubes to any of the 100 mm Canon macros. Others may disagree, like you do. That's fine with me. I am mostly done with proving my viewpoints to others. Either take it, or leave it, or investigate for yourself. What a lot of people do not seem to understand is that in the end it is not about the last little bit of sharpness, f.e., but about the way a photograph involves one.
And in my case, I found a macro photograph taken with 50L or 135L with extension tubes, involves me more than any of the 100 mm ones.
BTW, FYI, I have been shooting macro and micro for the past 38 years, and have in that period developed my own likes and dislikes. And based on my experience, and having owned quite a few macro lenses, and tested several more, I have to say that I personally am not overwhelmed by the 100L. It is that simple. If you are, fine with me, but I don't feel the need to prove it to you, or to anybody else for that matter. Just providing a different POV.
Kind regards, Wim
I will be most convinced if you have side-by-side, apple-to-apple comparison. All this talk sounds like those empty claims about film-quality, 3D effect etc etc... NONE of which has ever been demonstrated convincingly in a side-by-side proof.
[/quote]
Take my comments as you like.
Personally, as I made quite clear, I prefer the rendering of 50L and 135L with extension tubes to any of the 100 mm Canon macros. Others may disagree, like you do. That's fine with me. I am mostly done with proving my viewpoints to others. Either take it, or leave it, or investigate for yourself. What a lot of people do not seem to understand is that in the end it is not about the last little bit of sharpness, f.e., but about the way a photograph involves one.
And in my case, I found a macro photograph taken with 50L or 135L with extension tubes, involves me more than any of the 100 mm ones.
BTW, FYI, I have been shooting macro and micro for the past 38 years, and have in that period developed my own likes and dislikes. And based on my experience, and having owned quite a few macro lenses, and tested several more, I have to say that I personally am not overwhelmed by the 100L. It is that simple. If you are, fine with me, but I don't feel the need to prove it to you, or to anybody else for that matter. Just providing a different POV.
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 ....