Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 4, 2006, 8:08 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I'm considering buying one of these two lenses, for sports, landscape, portrait, maybe a little macro.

What I have read about these lenses are:

- Tamron is $100 more expensive

- Tamron is somewhat plasticky

- Canon lens is faster

- Subjectively, the Tamron may reproduce colors better

Your thoughts are appreciated....
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 4, 2006, 8:24 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
I'm considering buying one of these two lenses, for sports, landscape, portrait, maybe a little macro.
Sport and macro is a contradiction in term...

-> Macro lenses by nature focuses very slowly to be precise!
-> Sport lens is meant to shoot action afar and can't get to 1:1 or up too close...

You have to decide which camp you want to be in I'm afraid (sound to me like the 85mm f/1.8 by the liitle macro) :idea:

Although you can sometime do 'action' in macro: :-) :lol: :-)
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...amp;forum_id=7

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2006, 8:54 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

NHL,

I'm probably more in the sports camp.

My understanding is the Tamron, for instance, is still a pretty decent all around lens.

Would there be a fast focus difference between the two lenses?

Terry


PS: Awesome shot of the spider! Sports macro!
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2006, 9:00 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 51
Default

Sport and macro is a contradiction in term...*

Hi there,

second that! Imho the 85 as well as the 50/1.8 or the 100/2.0 are great protrait and (indoor-) sport lenses. But used with enough light, the macro might serve you well in that regard, too.

Ciao, W:-)
wolfie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2006, 7:59 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

The 85/1.8 doesn't have a particulary close minimum focus distance - 2.8 ft.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2006, 8:07 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
My understanding is the Tamron, for instance, is still a pretty decent all around lens.

Would there be a fast focus difference between the two lenses?
As long as you drop "sport" thenIMO it's quite adecent lens

The problem is this: a normal lens rotates about 90 degree to achieve the entire range of focus (usually in meters)- A macro lens on the other hand swings a larger arc and allows one tofine tunemillimeters up close so when the camera tries to AF with a macro lens, it takes more time to cover the distances - It also goes back and forth if the subject doesn't stay still (or if you are shaking the camera) which some folks call 'hunting'.

The Sigma's macros with HSM (or Canon's macroswith USM) alleviates this problem somewhat, but by no meanthey are"sport" lenses... i.e. you can just grab the lens barrel and overide the AF by using the full-time manualfeature without flipping the AF/Manual switch first!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2006, 9:19 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

I have the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and it is a great portrait lens for head and shoulder shots, or full body shots provided youhave the room. Ihave also used it for gymnastics, soccer, and little league baseball games, and it does a pretty good job there as well. Landscapesshots, it may be a little long for that, and as far as macro, maybe with extension tubes it might be ok, but I don't know for sure about that, never tried shooting macro with mine.

David
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2006, 4:52 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

How about the Canon 85mm f1.8 coupled with extension tubes and/or Canon's close-up filters? I know that combo won't give you true macro, but it should give you acceptable results.
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2006, 3:21 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

It's kind of hard to use the 85 with the extension tube, since the focus range becomes extremely shallow.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2006, 4:31 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 189
Default

I like the Canon 1.8 for sports.

Here's a basketball pic I took with a 20D and 85 1.8






RadioControlGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:03 PM.