Best Canon for macro with MP-E 65mm

I am interested in the Canon 65mm MP-E macro lens, which goes from 1x-5x magnification. I don't own an EOS camera body.

 

What is the best digital SLR choice for macro? In other words, what is the least expensive way to get great results with this lens and more

traditional macro lenses.

 

I am not interested in the best results possible. I realize that a more expensive camera will give better results or have other desirable

features.

 

I would like to be able to print easily to 12"x18" and preferably to 20"x30".

 

Ability to use higher ISO settings with low noise is a good thing with macro, since light is at a premium for macro.

 

This lens does not have AF ability, so I suspect variations in this capability won't matter. Features which help me with manual focus would

be helpful. Most of this is done by moving the camera rather than traditional focusing.

 

I realize that a tripod, focusing rail, self-timer or cable/remote release and appropriate lighting are very useful in macro work :).

 

I am open to FF and cropped sensor suggestions. I am open to currently produced and no longer produced bodies. I would be very happy

to be given an annotated list with comments like A is the cheapest and has these pros and cons. For a little more, B is better in these

ways.

 

I would like to figure out the least expensive way to gain access to this lens without being in a position where I feel the need to upgrade

the body once I become competent in using the lens.

 

What is the best inexpensive body for this purpose and why? What other factors should I be considering?

<p>Depending on the subjects you intend to shoot an articulated LCD screen may be helpful, especially when you place the camera near the ground. Or a remote monitor. <br />The best image quality is probably obtained with an EOS 6D (full frame). <br />If you go for a APS-C body one of the Rebels is probably the best choice, if it's only for the 65 mm macro lens: EOS 600D or 700D.</p>

<p>I think you may be overthinking it. Presumably, the goal is to get as close (though perhaps not physically) as possible, and so any of the crop cameras are going to give you a decided advantage over a FF unit. (so 1-5x -> 1.6-8x), given that, I'd probably go with anything from a T2i on up (the extra 3mp over the T1i is only a marginal improvement... but given the other improvements, may make the cost worthwhile -though mostly in the non macro realm).</p>

<p>High ISO performance is only going to be important if your subjects are moving, and then only marginally - ie, you are on a tripod anyway (without, this lens would be a fools errand), so you can expose for as long as is necessary, assuming your subject is stationary. With a moving subject (ie requiring a high enough shutter speed to freeze the motion), you'd be hard pressed to have enough ambient light to get anything usable. This means you are better off getting a camera with lower High ISO performance and some lighting, than simply a camera with stunning High ISO performance.</p>

<p>Frankly, any recent rebel ought to do just fine, save yourself some scratch on the camera, and focus on accesories (flash, tripod, remote, maybe rail)- <em>these</em> are going to make or break your shots in this (1-8x) range far more than 15 vs. 18 vs. 20 MP </p>

<p>I'd second the suggestion for an articulated screen, which would be very handy since you can expect to focus with live view.</p>

<p>The MP-E 65mm doesn't have autofocus, so AF performance doesn't matter.</p>

<p>You'll need a lot of light, preferably a ring flash. A tripod and focus rail are very helpful at these high magnifications.</p>

<p>Bear in mind the depth of field is very narrow with this lens, and if you stop down to increase it, you'll rapidly hit diffraction problems. The maximum depth-of-field the lens can achieve at any setting is 2.24mm - less than 1/8 inch. At 5x when the lens is wide open, the depth of field is about 1/500 inch.</p>

<p>The aperture of f/2.8 is somewhat deceptive; it's really an f/5.6 lens at 1x and an f/16 lens at 5x. At magnifications over 3x or so, getting anything that looks sharp at 20x30 inches will be difficult and will probably require focus stacking and very careful technique.</p>

<p>A review of the lens that might interest you - </p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>Firstly I agree with the general theme and I especially agree with these particular points of the previous three replies:<br>

> High ISO not so important;<br /> > You need money for Flash and tripod and rails (I don’t like ring flash for macro, BUT I haven’t used an MP-E 65 more than having a peripheral play with one);<br /> > You’ll probably research Flash Techniques a LOT. <br /> > An articulated screen is very handy for Manual Focussing (but I do usually use a monitor screen and I think that is even better – and I have an Angle Finder C which I still use, sometimes);<br /> > You’ll probably need to consider Focus Stacking;<br />> <a href="/photo/14617252">I’d advise a <strong>pair</strong> of focussing rails.</a><br /> <br /> <br /> *</p>

<p>But only addressing this question that you raise:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . what is the least expensive way to get great results with this lens <strong><em>and more traditional macro lenses.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A ‘full frame‘ camera is going to give you a bit more flexibility across the range of dedicated macro lenses: i.e. EF50/2.5; MP-E 65; EF100/2.8 and EF180/3.5 macro lenses.<br /> But the amount of flexibility will depend on what Subjects that <strong>you</strong> want to Photograph with the ‘<em>more traditional macro lenses’</em>.<br /> I find that my 50/2.5 and 100/2.8 when used with a ‘FF’ body are really useful for my Subjects: and I also find the 50 (or if I had one the EF-S 65) and 100 not as useful on my APS-C cameras – basically a FF camera is my preference with my 50mm and 100mm macro lenses, because of the <strong>shooting distances I want to use.</strong><br /> BUT many really enthusiastic Macro Photographers love APS-C cameras because of the extra bit of DoF leverage which that format provides them – but this aspect doesn’t bother me much at all.</p>

<p>WW</p>

Go with a full frame body and get a very good tripod and focusing rail. I don't own the lens but I have rented it - it is fantastic but difficult

to use. Be aware that as you increase the magnification the viewfinder gets very dark. Despite the indicated f stop on the lens this lens

lets a lot less light through than you might expect.

<p>Have you done much macro with regular, 1:1 macro lenses? Your questions suggest that perhaps you haven't. If not, 5:1 magnification will not be a picnic. Even 1:1 is technically very difficult because of the lighting issues and thin DOF that have been mentioned, as well as the fact that the slightest movement or error matters. If you haven't done much macro, I'd suggest starting with a regular macro lens and studying and practicing for a while.</p>

<p>Re which body is best: it depends on what you are going to shoot. With adequate lighting and very small subjects--smaller than, say, 30 or 35mm across--and at 1:1 or close, I often prefer a crop sensor because the higher pixel density will give you more pixels on the subject. at 1:1, a 1 cm bug will cast a 1cm image on any sensor, and the higher the density, the more pixels in that 1 cm. YOu can compensate with FF by going to a higher magnification, of course. The best choice also depends on other factors, such as the working distance you want, as WW mentioned. </p>

<p>I started using this lens with a 10D, then eventually with a 5D. An articulating or external monitor is a must, as are macro rails and a very, very solid tripod/camera stand. At 5x any ambient vibration will show up in the frame.</p>

<p>Derick, what are your expected subjects?</p>

<p>As mentioned earlier, shooting above 1:1 magnification can be very difficult. If your just starting, then shooting below 1:1 would be a good first step. That's easily achieved with a crop-sensor DSLR, an extension tube, a Teleconverter and a 100mm or 200mm lens, or 70-200mm with a close minimum focus distance. This works well for filling the frame with a butterfly or bumblebee. You can hand hold this rig and the working distance is generous and easy to work with.</p>

<p>If you want details of the bumble bee's eye or super detail of the pollen on its legs, then you'll need more magnification, a way to catch the bee, a freezer to immobilize it, a lens like the like the 65mm MP-E, software to focus-stack, lights, etc., etc.</p>

<p>I wouldn't try the second until you've tried the first and are happy with those results. In either case, a crop sensor camera will do the trick. At multiplication over 1:1, DOF will become more critical and may lead you to full-frame, but then a used 5D will serve you decently.<br>

<br /><br />If you end up deeply involved in macro photography, you'll want better equipment, but don't go there until you're sure. Buy used and then you can recover your investment mostly, if you lose interest.</p>

First I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful and detailed responses! I will, no doubt, be returning to this thread many

times as I work through my questions and do my research.

 

I will attempt to respond to the questions raised in and by the responses in this thread and clarify my experience and

intentions. This may make clearer what I do or don't understand :).

 

As many here, I started with film (35mm, MF and even an 8x10 with a Polaroid back!) and the darkroom. Got a Canon

G1 "for family pictures" and soon transitioned to Nikon DSLR since I was in the film system :). I photographed portraits

and events for a while but now it's just for fun. In my photographic experience, macro is a fairly new thing, but I am not

new to photography.

 

I have transitioned to the Fuji X system and am playing with a macro lens that is capable of 1:1.

 

Over the years, I have acquired some gear (as so many here) and I am trying to edit down my collection to the most

useful. That is why I now "overthink" any additions to the collection.

 

I do own a stable tripod (although I am contemplating something with more positioning flexibility) and lighting equipment

of various types.

 

I have played with handheld and tripod with the macro lens. I have photographed plants, insects outdoors and inanimate

subjects on a tabletop. I have played a little with strobes (including an Orbis "ring flash"), reflectors, diffusers, etc. I'm

also enjoying the ease with which I can make less than macro close ups with a portrait length telephoto lens.

 

I ran up against magnification limitations. In the Fuji system there is no provision for higher than 1:1 magnification. There

are third-party tubes that maintain electrical connection, but there are reports of shorted out cameras (no thanks). Close

up filters seem less desirable. The other option is legacy lenses with bellows, etc. I have also played with attaching a

reversed lens to get greater than 1x magnification. Both of these quickly become somewhat unwieldy--ok on the tabletop

but a bit much in the field.

 

Chasing insects, I have found it hard to use a tripod :). My next experiments will be around increasing light or finding

better support solutions. This will only get worse as magnification increases. It is the reason I think higher ISO would be a

benefit.

 

I understand the basic issues of diffraction as f stop gets smaller and effective f stops at extension. I also have experience

with the DOF and focusing challenges as magnification increases.

 

I am aware of but have not tried focus stacking. I will probably experiment with it at some point.

 

Live view and an articulated screen have been added to my "must have" list. Thank you.

 

Is the use of an iPad supported as an external monitor? I can see a computer in the studio, but not in the field.

 

"what are your expected subjects?"

 

I am enjoying a wide range of subjects right now. I have been making images for decades and never explored anything

closer than a headshot :).

 

The area that seems the most challenging to me is insects in their environment at high magnification.

Most of use photographing insects with this lens work handheld, normally with flash.

 

A crop body or full frame is good, easier to get close in with a crop but full frame gives slightly better resolution at the

same framing.

 

For flash I would avoid ring flash due to the ring reflections this causes. Better options are the twin flash (expensive) or a

conventional flash with a bracket and hot shoe cable. Searches will turn up examples of the latter.

 

For good results flash diffusion is advisable, again searches should turn up examples.

 

One hint for the camera is as you will be using flash it helps if you can adjust the flash exposure compensation without

removing the camera from your eye. The less highly featured Canon bodies only permit the FEC adjustment using the monitor quick menu and don't indicate the setting in the viewfinder.

<p>Lester said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"A crop body or full frame is good, easier to get close in with a crop but full frame gives slightly better resolution at the same framing."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you say this Lester? It seems to me that the higher pixel-density of a crop-sensor would provide better resolution than a full-frame sensor. (Noise might be more of an issue, but not resolution).</p>

 

<p>When I first bought an MP-E 65mm, I expected that I would mostly use it in natural light, with a focusing rail. However, in practice, I rarely use it that way. I use it almost exclusively with flash. Like William, I dislike the look that ring lights give, so I prefer to use the Canon macro twin light (MT-24EX). I find that I can use it hand-held up to about 3x magnification. The subjects are mostly tiny insects that I'd like to see more clearly. It can be hard to hold the camera at the right distance from the subject to get well-focused shots but I find that if I take enough shots there are nearly always some sharp ones.<br>

If you were to take this approach, I'd recommend a used 5D because it has a better viewfinder than APS-C cameras. The original 5D would be fine, and it's quite a bargain at the moment if you can find a lightly-used one. If you prefer the focusing rail approach, I'd recommend any camera with live view, because you can magnify the image on the rear screen to be sure that you've achieved critical focus.<br>

Have you considered renting the lens and an EOS body to see if you like it?<br>

As an aside, someone suggested putting insects in the freezer to make them easier to control. I can't condone any chilling of insects in order to photograph them. However, if anyone feels that they really must do this, the fridge would be a more considerate choice than the freezer.</p>

@ David. I qualified my comment by saying "with the same framing".

 

I am currently shooting this lens with the 7D and 6D, so this is my observation. A subject you need 3x on for crop you may

need to go to 5x on the full frame. Tbh result are not so different, but at lower magnifications the full frame has the edge.

 

Of course managing the working distance and interference of your flash rig on the surroundings gets harder at high

magnification.

 

On the 6D I have done some sucsesfuly natural light work handheld up to about 3x, great for subjects like the Green Tiger

Beetle where flash would have to be very heavily diffused to be acceptable.

<p>Lester, I think you're seeing something else. The 7D has much higher pixel-density and resolution that the 6D. "With the same framing" you'll get more pixels on the subject with the 7D. With the 6D's much newer sensor and larger pixels and higher dynamic range, you'll get less noise and possibly a cleaner file (lighting dependent), but it will not resolve more detail.</p>

<p>When I say "resolution", I'm not talking about general IQ. Instead, I'm talking about detail resolving, which is where crop-sensors tend to have an advantage, but at the possible cost of noise.<br>

<br />I'm anxious to try the new 7D MkII, with it's up to date sensor and dual Digic 6 processors.</p>

<p>Here is an example of a shot with the MP-E 65mm, lit with the MT-24EX, handheld at approximately 2x. The camera body is a 5D Mark 2 but the original 5D would also do a fine job.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>It can be hard to hold the camera at the right distance from the subject to get well-focused shots but <strong>I find that if I take enough shots there are nearly always some sharp ones</strong>. . . Here is an example of a shot with the MP-E 65mm,<strong> lit with the MT-24EX,</strong> handheld at approximately 2x.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice shot. Thanks for sharing.<br>

Questions:<br>

In this shooting scenario, do you typically shoot single shot mode or continuous mode?<br>

If you use continuous mode, how does the MT24EX cycle time factor into that equation?<br>

Thank you.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Thanks, William. I always shoot in single shot mode. The shot that I posted above is one that I took this afternoon. I mentioned that I take plenty of shots in order to get some sharp ones. But the focusing failures are usually not completely blurry. It's just that they are not critically sharp. I took about a dozen shots of the flies and about half of them were sharp.<br>

I never find that I'm waiting for the MT-24EX to recycle. But there are usually at least 3-4 seconds between shots anyway, so that's probably not surprising.<br>

This wasp was on the same set of stapelia flowers this afternoon.<br>

<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Thank you for the detail. That all makes sense to me.<br>

When I had a play with this lens, I was using a tripod and a pair of rails (the photo of the rails that I linked to), but I was shooting inanimate objects and I had a flash rigged up in the style of a mini light box.<br>

I have read of people using this hand held technique for snapping bugs, etc, in the field with this lens, but this was the first opportunity I have had to ask some detailed questions of someone who has used this technique, thanks again.<br>

WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The wasp turns out to be a braconid wasp. I've just been reading about them. They have incorporated parts of ancient viral genomes into their own DNA. The virus DNA helps suppress the immune system of the host insect, thereby allowing the wasp's offspring to grow inside the host undetected.<br>

One other thing about handholding this lens. I find that I get sharper images if I keep both eyes open when shooting. I wonder whether perhaps visual feedback from the other eye helps me to not to change my distance from the subject when the image blacks out. <br /><br>

</p>