Canon 100mm f2.8L IS

But the lens is amazing. So whatever the cheapest is you can get it for it is worth it.
 
DPR thought so. Take a look at the overall conclusions here.
 
That's a good saving, but what I'm really asking is "is it worth the money or is the EF non-IS just as good if you're using a tripod most of the time?
 
I have it and I am in love with it. Works like a dream for macro and just as good for portraits.

Super fast focusing and built like a tank.
 
I had the IS version, sold it then decided to try macro again so bought the non-is.
I find the non-is sufficient for my needs either with a tripod or using a ring flash.
 
I agree with duttytd, its ace, the colours contrast and sharpness are awesome. The focus limiters are really good as well. It is very nice for portraits but I just got the 85 1.2 so it won't be used too much for that now.
 
amtaylor said:
I agree with duttytd, its ace, the colours contrast and sharpness are awesome. The focus limiters are really good as well. It is very nice for portraits but I just got the 85 1.2 so it won't be used too much for that now.
Click to expand...

Think you should give me the 85 1.2 and in return Il give you the one they call THE KIT LENS! :-D
 
duttytd said:
Think you should give me the 85 1.2 and in return Il give you the one they call THE KIT LENS! :-D
Click to expand...

Hmmm, tempting! When faced with such a generous offer one might perhaps only reasonably respond with the single word euphemism......
....SWIVEL!

LOL
 
My photography skills are still in the making but I hope these help.

LittleDazwatermarked.jpg


BlueDroplet.jpg


IMG_8559.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top