Andre Labonte Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off
|
Wow, lots of good info here and lots of options I did not think of.
Thank you EVERYONE for your feedback, and please keep the idea coming.
Thank you Guidenet for the rundown on the AI and AIS lenses. That may be an option for a quick an dirty macro lens.
Thank you Jammy for the followup. The Zeiss is nice, but OUCH on the price.
Thank you Avi for the offer of samples from the 85VR... I will be in touch.
Kerry is right, I have not provided enough information. Two reasons for that. One, I wanted to see what other people would do in that situation and second, I did not want to bias the opinions. My macro needs are two fold.
1-- General indoor/outdoor of non-living creatures. Some table top, so not too long of a working distance, but I don't care of the 60 micro because it's too short of a working distance. I was thinking the 105VR would be perfect for this, and with the ability to use TCs, offers some working distance flexability @ 1:1. But I was shying away from this lens due to both cost and size/weight ... more for size & weight as it will likely be the least used of my lenses. The new 85VR is right up my ally for cost, weight and bulk, and would be perfect if it took TCs, but I'm thinking it does not. Right now I use my 70-200 with tubes or a Canon 500D and find it too large for general macro work. The 17-55 with tubes has too short of a working distance. So I'm totally open minded to other options.
2 -- Outdoor bugs and insects. My brother has the 200mm micro and as Steve said, it's the best dang micro out there. Big and heavy though, and expensive! I put the Sigma 150 up there too ... but again, size and weight added to the bag. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of impressive work done with the 300 f/4 AF-S and tubes and was thinking of going that route as I plan to get the 300 f/4 in the future anyway for the "long" tele needs. I figure this would be the best bang for the buck and keep the size/weight of the bag down. Right now I use my 70-200 with tubes and find I need just a little more reach, so the 300 + tubes should do just right.
Part of it is keeping my over-all bag in ballance from a weight point of view while maximizing my capability options. Here is what I am shooting for:
D300 + Grip (have)
10-24 for WA
17-55 bread & butter (have)
50 f/1.8 for DX portrait (have) -- my copy is tack sharp even wide open
70-200 general use tele (have)
300 + TCs for long tele (I have the 1.7 TC)
That a pretty good bag for an ameture who plans on staying an ameture and with DX. The one thing I am missing is micro capability. I have it with a set of Kenko tubes, Canon 250D (for the 50mm) and a Canon 500D (for the 70-200). But, I find that at the short end I need the reach of something in the 85-125mm range without the bulk of the 70-200 or even the 105VR. At the long end, who cares about bulk, I want REACH!
|