Iris lens testing

[musicman5]

I was recently using the blooms of my Iris to determine which lens I like best for flower shots.

This was taken with the winner a Canon EF 135mm f/2L lens.



You can see the 70-200 and 200mm tests on my Flickr stream if you are interested.

[NCPhotoTrekker]

Looks like a very capable flower lens! My personal favorites are my 180mm f/3.5 macro and 24-70mm f/2.8. These consistantly give me the best results.

[musicman5]

Well the light was all wrong but it was when I could do the test.

I do not own a macro lens. Almost bought one recently but instead I picked up a used 16-35mm that is marvelous. If I could find a decent used 100mm macro I might be tempted but for now I have talked myself out of it.

So I needed to refresh my memory on which of my lenses were best for this sort of thing. I'm hoping the weather holds this weekend so I can hike over to an area that I like to shoot in. If I do I suspect I'll take the 135 with me as it is fairly light. The 70-200 is just to heavy for me to lug around. It and the 24-70 just stay in my studio area.

My walk around telephoto is the 70-300mm DO IS lens, a great lens. Very sharp and not heavy at all to carry. I even use it for indoor concert work.

[NCPhotoTrekker]

Here's a thought...you could go with an extension tube. They are great for primes....a bit problematic with zooms though. It will allow you to focus in closer than the lens is designed for. There is no light loss as with an tele-extender so your lens will work as it did before exposure wise. The tubes are a fraction of the price of a macro lens, and take up very little room in your bag.

As a bonus, you can use an extension tube with a macro for better than 1:1 reproduction. So if you end up with a macro down the road you will still be able to use the extension tube.

[musicman5]

May 14, 2010 14:40:25 GMT -5 NCPhotoTrekker said:

Here's a thought...you could go with an extension tube. They are great for primes....a bit problematic with zooms though. It will allow you to focus in closer than the lens is designed for. There is no light loss as with an tele-extender so your lens will work as it did before exposure wise. The tubes are a fraction of the price of a macro lens, and take up very little room in your bag.

As a bonus, you can use an extension tube with a macro for better than 1:1 reproduction. So if you end up with a macro down the road you will still be able to use the extension tube.

I'll have to check into that Greg, Thanks!

[musicman5]

Here is another candidate for me when I have it with me, my 70-300mm DO IS.

[NCPhotoTrekker]

I personally like the very shallow depth of field with the longer lens. However, there seems to be a little less contrast, although that might be from the lighting which is not quite what you would be after for a real shoot.

[musicman5]

Went out Saturday on a flower search with the 70-300 and was very pleased with the results.

[k8mia]

May 14, 2010 18:41:00 GMT -5 musicman5 said:

Here is another candidate for me when I have it with me, my 70-300mm DO IS.

I like the 70x300mm Shot the best. But Good Work on All !

[NCPhotoTrekker]

I think that the long lens is the winner here. Looks very sharp, and the contrast issues are apparently attributed to the lighting as other images are just fine.