EOS Recommendations

f16sunshine

f16sunshine

Moderator
Local time
12:17 PM
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,259
I'm getting into AF Film Cameras. I use a 5Dii so the EOS system is a natural choice.
I'm only shooting B+W Film. Currently using an early EOS 650 with a 50mm f1.8.
It's in great condition and does exactly what it should.
I would like an Eos3 when I can find a nice one but for now it's about lenses!

On my 5Dii I have only used adapted lenses from Zeiss, Zuiko, and Pentax (other than the mentioned AF 50mm).

I'm looking to add an AF 100mm. There are several available and I'm hoping you all will make comments and post samples for any of the following.
I do prefer 100mm over 85mm but am open minded.

f2/100mm
f2.8/100mm macro
f2.8/100mm macro USM
f2.8100mm L IS Macro USM
Others?? Sigma, Tamron... etc..

Maybe there are others. I'm not a Macro photographer bu like wide open sharpness.
I mostly want a bit more reach for environmental portraits and street scenes.
I've read a fair bit online but.... hoping for your experiences as well.

Cheers!
 
Andy

Andy

I don't have any samples to post but I have the "L" series IS lens you questioned and I can tell you that it is just superb. Another choice for interesting macro normal photography is the 24-70 f4 IS lens. With a small ext tube I can focus right up to about a half inch from the lens. Probably the best all around lens I have ever used.

Good luck. Steve
 
The macro L is the best lens of them, closely followed by the 100mm f2 which is also smaller and faster focussing. The zeiss ZE 100mm f2 makro planar is the best 100mm lens around.
 
Thansk all. Jan that's interesting that it may be too sharp. For actual sitting Portrait sets I would still use my Zeiss 2/100.
I'm looking for an AF lens for candid use. Sharpness is most welcome!

The f2/100mm USM is the one that has me quite interested. It's smaller and lighter weight.

It's been difficult to search images from that lens.
Every search query I start on Flickr brings all lenses with the "EF 100mm f2" in it including "EF 100mm f2.8".
There just are not many images from the f2 as compared to the millions from the f2.8's apparently.
Most are the typical high contrast/saturation EOS bokeh bug and lower pics.
 
The 100mm f2 is not super sharp wide open, but sharpens up nicely at f2.8. The 85mm f1.8 is a bit sharper wide open.

For maximum flexibility the current model 100mm f2.8 IS macro would be a top choice. Sharp, also macro for getting in close and IS for ensuring you can shoot in lower light without a tripod. This is very handy with film, because you can't just crank up the ISO, of course.
 
If you want substantially more working distance than the 85mm lenses, what about the 135 L. Beautiful lens.
 
I would go for the 100/2. I own the 85/1.8 as it is a little cheaper and it is a wonderful lens, the 100/2 is supposed to be comparable. Fast AF, lovely portraits.

As others said, if you can live with the longer FL and the extra money, take look at the 135L. But I think you should get the 100/2.

And the Macro's, well, they can do portraits, but they are optimised for macro photography.
 
When I had Canon gear—seems an eon ago—the EF 100mm f/2 was one of my favorite lenses. Just the right mix of resolution, contrast, bokeh, FoV, size, and weight.

G
 
I just read a couple reviews on the 2/100mm.
Also saw a graphic comparing the Eos Primes all lined up.
The size is just too tempting and it still has a USM.
So... I ordered one. Hopefully it's sharp at f2. Turtle your comment concerns me a bit.
On film maybe it will be sharp enough.


I'm sure having the USM lens will make me wish for one at 50mm as well.
The 50L is beautiful but so large and I don't need such speed very often. But it's still tempting.
The Sigma 1.4/50mm is interesting as well but I've read reports of focus issues.

Anyone care to comment on the Sigma 50mm vs the EF 1.4/50 or 50L ?
 
photomoof, Sigma never marketed a 100/2.8, I guess you mean a 105/2.8.
f16sunshine, my Canon 85/1.8 is sharp enough at f/2, so, your 100/2.0 will be allright ;)
 
I have L. Weather sealed, IS and good glass in it.
iS makes huge difference and AF.
Tamron has good alternative to this lens as well.
With EOS 3 it is weather sealed kit.

But I sold this camera, family EOS 300 is less bulky and does all I need.
I also have 50L and it is lens to have for film and digital EOS, no alternatives.

100 f2 USM might be good for b/w, I sold it because it sucks for color.
 
I have the 100 mm f2.8L macro IS; superb lens.. great for portraits and doubles as a macro. I also have the 85mm f1.8: good portrait lens: compact, fast focussing and good value.
 
The 650 was the first EOS model actually. I have one myself as my interest in film a few years ago commenced with an EOS 630 (600 in some markets). The 650 is a good camera however for as little as $10 or so these days you can find a 630 with faster auto focus, custom functions such as leaving your film leader out when it rewinds the canister and up to five frames per second. If you like the 650 you'll transition to the 630 quite easily as the controls are laid out the same; it just has a few more features incl multiple exposure and flash exposure compensation as well as exposure compensation (if these things are useful). I also have a 620 which offers an extra stop of shutter speed (1/4000) and a 1/250 sync speed instead of 1/125. My favourite EOS is my RT, which, in RT mode is almost unbeatable for split second imaging, because of its super fast response time and pellicle mirror (as used in the EOS-1 N RS).

Many of these early Canon bodies are now as cheap as chips, and even top end ones such as the EOS-1 can be had for very little money, for the investment, having a spare body or two on hand isn't a bad move.

Anyway you were asking about lenses. Because I am usually happiest with older cameras and manual focus lenses I actually don't know a great deal about EOS glass. But coincidentally I noticed this article about some of the older EOS lenses over at Petapixel and it has some suggestions for some options in the focal length you mention. They're zooms, not primes. I also prefer primes myself, generally, but FYI, maybe it will be of interest.
Cheers
Brett
 
Turtle said:
The 100mm f2 is not super sharp wide open, but sharpens up nicely at f2.8. The 85mm f1.8 is a bit sharper wide open.

For maximum flexibility the current model 100mm f2.8 IS macro would be a top choice. Sharp, also macro for getting in close and IS for ensuring you can shoot in lower light without a tripod. This is very handy with film, because you can't just crank up the ISO, of course.
Click to expand...



The 85 might be sharper but it's got more CA. I've never felt the 100/2 is wanting for sharpness wide open, especially for OP's uses. I have a Lester Dine/Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.8 macro and it's a bit sharper but the 100/2 has a nice look all of it's own with comparatively more contrast, less CA in the focus plane, less color fringing in the out of focus areas, and of course USM and auto aperture...

Not really any bad options out of anything mentioned here, to be honest.
 
Andy, I've got the 100/2.8 macro (not the L version) - almost too sharp for portraits, every skin imperfection in sharp detail. Very nice bokeh and transition to unsharpness. A little slower to focus than, say, the EF50/1.4 (which I like for portraits).

My film body is an EOS300 I bought for $10 at a charity store - cheap and plasticky, but works fine. I'm keeping an eye out for a better quality body, something like the equivalent of a Nikon F80 or F100 would be nice. Anyone have any idea of what that would be?

I've seen model shoot photos from the 135/2L and they look fabulous.

What distance do you like to work from your models? I think that's something worth thinking about. I like a closer working distance so 85/100 is about my ideal. I bought the 105 macro as a compromise as I like both portraits and macro work.
 
For 50's I've owned the 1.8, 1.4 and Sigma 1.4.
1.8 is nice and cheap, but a bit too much vignetting at max aperture for my taste. Sharp lens though with nice OOF rendering.

1.4 was nice, not the fastest focus, but accurate. My copy stopped working well after a few years. Had to detach and reattach to get AF to work sometimes.

Sigma was nice, but larger with a 77mm filter size. A good copy is a gem. Fast focus, though mine was a bit louder than the Canon's. Creamy OOF. A bit of CA and maybe coma in there too.

Overall, for price, size/weight and usefulness, the Canon 1.4 would be my pick. Though I thought they were to update it. Haven't tried the Sigma Art version, but that's a bit spendy for a 50 IMO.
 
lynnb said:
Andy, I've got the 100/2.8 macro (not the L version) - almost too sharp for portraits, every skin imperfection in sharp detail. Very nice bokeh and transition to unsharpness. A little slower to focus than, say, the EF50/1.4 (which I like for portraits).

My film body is an EOS300 I bought for $10 at a charity store - cheap and plasticky, but works fine. I'm keeping an eye out for a better quality body, something like the equivalent of a Nikon F80 or F100 would be nice. Anyone have any idea of what that would be?

I've seen model shoot photos from the 135/2L and they look fabulous.

What distance do you like to work from your models? I think that's something worth thinking about. I like a closer working distance so 85/100 is about my ideal. I bought the 105 macro as a compromise as I like both portraits and macro work.
Click to expand...
Lynn, see my comments above for some better built options that don't cost an arm and a leg. The main thing to beware of with the older EOS shutters is the black goo from the foam bumpers that dissolves and smears itself over the shutter blades. Slow speeds will often be OK, but the high ones can become random and/or overexposed. It is a lot of work to strip the camera and replace these parts, quite uneconomic for most models these days, so the best plan is to procure an example that has a clean shutter. I've bought several which I have used for four or five years without any issues so this is still quite a feasible option.

Otherwise, there is a hack to redeem dirty shutters, involving much cleaning and careful scraping of the dirty blades with naptha and stiff paper or thin cardboard along the edges of the gate, until the goo is removed. It's most likely detrimental to the absolute longevity of the shutter mechanism, as the bumpers are there to brake the curtains gently, however given the current affordability of these bodies, I'm prepared to kill a shutter every few years and replace a body, as it is far cheaper than having the parts professionally replaced. If you have any specific questions feel free to get in touch.
Cheers,
Brett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom