Hey guys,
Is this a decent lens to walk around with for the cost, besides the use of details? Looking to have a lens on the 2nd body or on my wifes camera. Right now I've got the 17-40 f/4, 70-200 2.8, and a 50mm 1.8 that I bring with me. Looking at the 24-70 2.8 but holding out a bit longer. All bodies are crop factor.
Most macro lenses are generally slower in the AF department. Most are, generally speaking, ultra sharp. If you have enough light you should be good, however, you might have difficulty keeping up with moving targets in low light.
Problem is it's narrow on a crop body for regular work. Yet not very "tele" as such.
Good to shoot at person or car size objects from about 8-15 meters (25-50 foot). Not very fast in the Aperture dep't. The difference between f/2.8 and f/2.0 is big.
Thanks for everyones posts....I'm going to hold off a bit longer on it as I've done alright thus far with the ring shots and I'm looking for a more walk around general use lens.
Take a look at my brother in laws flickr page.He has 2 lenses and the macro is the one he uses the most.Amazing how versatile it can be when its nearly all you have.
-Jim http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_pitch/
It is a great lens, very sharp, relatively quick to focus, for a macro, and very nice blur. I sold mine once I got the 180, however, the 100 is so close in IQ for less than half, that I wonder why I moved up. It always amazes me at how good this lens is and how it can add depth to your images...
