06-23-2016, 05:31 AM
TeeGee -
If you have this lens, lets see this so-called "Super Macro", or at least 1:1! It sounds like an interesting lens. I wish people would include working distance whenever they provide MFD.
I am not really up to speed on EF-M cameras. If the theory of EF-S is that a smaller registry distance make it easier to develop wide angle lens, then why aren't there better wide angle lenses? Personally, I'd like to see this lens in EF-S (if possible) so it could be used on a good camera.
EF-S has two primes (not counting EF lenses). The 60mm f/2.8 macro, which I like a lot, and the 24mm f/2.8 Pancake. Since they are the only two primes for EF-S, I thought it fitting that they be given metal mounts and legitimate focusing motors. So I have to agree with Klaus, while, maybe, unnecessary, it really doesn't inspire confidence when they put a plastic mount on a lens. I bit the bullet when I bought the EF-S 10-18mm because it is considered a good lens. But the plastic mount does bother me.
I don't think I subscribe to the focal length makes no difference in a macro lens. It's really hard to see the differences when tubes and teleconverters and close-up filters enter into it. I like that Klaus mentioned the actual focal lengths, if I remember right, when comparing certain 100mm-ish macro lenses. It is also known that the f-stop really is not as stated at macro distances. So, the Canon EF 100mm IS USM L lens is really a 75mm f/4 lens at 1:1 distances.
The only points I guess I want to make are, too bad they did not make such a lens for EF-S. I suspect EF-S is what pays all the bills at Canon, so they should really show a little more love for EF-S customers. But if they did, please, try not to make it look like a child's toy plastic lens! And second, that I have been really curious to use a very short 1:1 macro lens. I know the trickery used to attain 1:1 clouds the differences, but surely this is going to have interesting depth of field aspects.
Brightcolours, I am not totally disagreeing with you. You tube work is awesome, cutting edge stuff. But tell me you don't want this lens!
Rover: Sorry to hear about your disaster! I know one should be careful and so on, but I pretty much never use the lens's tripod rings, mainly because they are usually at home. So I could see the temptation to mount a tube, and when I use my 180mm macro lens, which is almost as big as your lens, I shoot it one handed all the time. It's probably close to the weight of the lens you were using. I know under the right (wrong?) circumstances I'd probably have tried it too. Thanks for sharing your story. It might save me from doing the same thing!
If you have this lens, lets see this so-called "Super Macro", or at least 1:1! It sounds like an interesting lens. I wish people would include working distance whenever they provide MFD.
I am not really up to speed on EF-M cameras. If the theory of EF-S is that a smaller registry distance make it easier to develop wide angle lens, then why aren't there better wide angle lenses? Personally, I'd like to see this lens in EF-S (if possible) so it could be used on a good camera.
EF-S has two primes (not counting EF lenses). The 60mm f/2.8 macro, which I like a lot, and the 24mm f/2.8 Pancake. Since they are the only two primes for EF-S, I thought it fitting that they be given metal mounts and legitimate focusing motors. So I have to agree with Klaus, while, maybe, unnecessary, it really doesn't inspire confidence when they put a plastic mount on a lens. I bit the bullet when I bought the EF-S 10-18mm because it is considered a good lens. But the plastic mount does bother me.
I don't think I subscribe to the focal length makes no difference in a macro lens. It's really hard to see the differences when tubes and teleconverters and close-up filters enter into it. I like that Klaus mentioned the actual focal lengths, if I remember right, when comparing certain 100mm-ish macro lenses. It is also known that the f-stop really is not as stated at macro distances. So, the Canon EF 100mm IS USM L lens is really a 75mm f/4 lens at 1:1 distances.
The only points I guess I want to make are, too bad they did not make such a lens for EF-S. I suspect EF-S is what pays all the bills at Canon, so they should really show a little more love for EF-S customers. But if they did, please, try not to make it look like a child's toy plastic lens! And second, that I have been really curious to use a very short 1:1 macro lens. I know the trickery used to attain 1:1 clouds the differences, but surely this is going to have interesting depth of field aspects.
Brightcolours, I am not totally disagreeing with you. You tube work is awesome, cutting edge stuff. But tell me you don't want this lens!
Rover: Sorry to hear about your disaster! I know one should be careful and so on, but I pretty much never use the lens's tripod rings, mainly because they are usually at home. So I could see the temptation to mount a tube, and when I use my 180mm macro lens, which is almost as big as your lens, I shoot it one handed all the time. It's probably close to the weight of the lens you were using. I know under the right (wrong?) circumstances I'd probably have tried it too. Thanks for sharing your story. It might save me from doing the same thing!