Macro photography with Canon 500D close-up filter

I have used a Canon 100mm macro lens for close-up work with flowers

and small critters down to 1:1 magnification with good results except

the focusing distance is sometimes a bit close. Would the addition of

a Canon 500D close-up filter to a Canon 100-400mm IS lens offer any

advantage? What degree of magnification, with/without extension tubes,

could I expect? Any other sugestions would be appreciated.

 

Thank you.

Check this site http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/closeups.html

 

Bob Atkins had a page with macro information but I can't find the link. Consider getting the Nikon 6T with step down adapter if needed. No it will not vignette, I use the 6T on my 200/2.8L with 72mm filter thread and the step down to the 62mm of the 6T does not cause a problem. Even with the step down ring the Nikon is significantly cheaper than the 500D but of equal quality. The advantage is greater working distance with the longer focal length. I can get about 1:1 with my 200 +1.4x + 6T and about double the working distance of the 100mm macro.

I too have an EF 100-400 IS as well and have considered the same thing.

I have owned the 5T/6T in the past and they are quality macro glass

but at 67mm, stepping down from the 100-400,s 77mm is quite a jump.My guess is that some vignetting would occur. Like Alan, a user opinion of the 100-400 with the 500D would be in order here.

Alan, check out the Bob Atkins links Peter was referring to at http://advanix/com/~photo/bobatkins/info/faq30/closeup.htm and http://advanix/com/~photo/bobatkins/info/faq30/closeup2.htm. I hope this helps.

The (cheaper) 300 f/4 IS is vastly better suited to this purpose with its built in close focusing to 1:4. Any additional teleconverters, tubes, or diopters will make it truly a macro lens!

 

I believe the 100-400 IS close focus to 6.9 ft, compared to 4.9 of the 300 4 IS. The 300 is a blessing for working distance.

 

Good luck!

 

Matthew Smith

Sorry, I was incorect, the 100-400 close focuses to 5.9 ft. I still think a prime mught offer certain advantages, esp. with tubes/ diopters/ extenders. Sorry again.

Keep in mind that tubes don't do much at 300 or 400mm (unless you stack a few of them, which Canon says you shouldn't do). Tubes have a large effect at the short end of the 100-400 though!

 

I too would love to see a user report regarding the 100-400 IS + 500D. But I'm willing to bet the price of both that the combination results in a lower image quality than the 100mm macro for closeup work! Of course the trade off in quality for a lighter bag may be worthwhile when traveling or climbing.

Well for me, at least, when I,m out doing birds and other wildlife

and I,m set up for this with a 100-400IS. I,d like to be able slap on the 500D if I happen to see a potentially great bug shot and don,t want to dig through the bag for my EF 100 macro, take off the 100-400,

mount it and meanwhile the bug in question has long gone. More of a convenience thing, but will it do the job even close to what the Canon 100 2.8 macro can do? Wonder also, if the IS would aid in steadying the

unit for macro shots? It,s done a terrific job in that department

otherwise for me and given me great windy day shots that I might not

have gotten with any other lens.

If my understanding of the formulas is correct, then this combination should give from 1:5 (0.2X) to 1:1 (1X) magnification. At 100mm and infinity focus: 0X +(2 diopter x 0.1m); at 400mm and close focus: 0.2X + (2 diopter x 0.4m) = 1.0X. Thus the lens should give you from infinity to 0.2X without the closeup lens and 0.2X - 1X with it. Is this correct? (BTW, if this formula is correct, the 300mm IS would give you 0.85X.)

 

Three advantages of this combo over the 100mm macro should be greater working distance (up to ~20" from the front of the diopter), the rotating tripod mount, the relative ease of switching magnification w/o drastically moving the tripod, little loss of light due to extension (dimmer to start with, though), etc. The 100mm is most probably sharper, has a true flat field, is a lot smaller, etc. (I won't even get into the 180mm macro pros & cons.) Tradeoffs are great, aren't they? It would be nice for someone with access to both could do a controlled comparison.

I would imagine that the 100-400L would make a fine macro lens with the addition of the 500D. I have used the 500D quite a bit on my 70-200 F2.8 with excellent results (good enough for a front cover of a major national magazine). I also have the 180mm F3.5L macro which is a very sharp lens and the results from the 70-200 combo stack up very well against it. You get about 1/2 life size with the 70-200 and I would guess you would get close to life size with the 100-400. I will find out soon enough since the 100-400 I ordered should arrive oday.

 

The biggest advantage to the zoom with a 500D compared to a single focal length lens, is the ease of framing just by zooming the lens. I tryed the 500D on my 400F5.6L and didn't like the limitations of that setup.

I would imagine that the 100-400L would make a fine macro lens with the addition of the 500D. I have used the 500D quite a bit on my 70-200 F2.8 with excellent results (good enough for a front cover of a major national magazine). I also have the 180mm F3.5L macro which is a very sharp lens and the results from the 70-200 combo stack up very well against it. You get about 1/2 life size with the 70-200 and I would guess you would get close to life size with the 100-400. I will find out soon enough since the 100-400 I ordered should arrive today.

 

The biggest advantage to the zoom with a 500D compared to a single focal length lens, is the ease of framing just by zooming the lens. I tryed the 500D on my 400F5.6L and didn't like the limitations of that setup.

"I too have an EF 100-400 IS as well and have considered the same thing. I have owned the 5T/6T in the past and they are quality macro glass but at 67mm, stepping down from the 100-400,s 77mm is quite a jump. My guess is that some vignetting would occur."

 

1: Nikon's 5T/6T closeup filters are 62mm not 67mm.

 

2: Vignetting does not occur when step-down rings are used on telephoto lenses. The affect is more akin to stopping down the lens, the step-down ring acts like a smaller aperture. Vignetting only occurs if the smaller aperture is some distance in front of the lens.

You will loose about one stop when using a 77-62mm step down ring.

Using the 5T/6T will give good results, although the viewfinder may be a little dark, and focusing may be harder as a result. Greater than life size will be obtained with the 6T.

Thanks for the correction on the 5T/6T size. It has been awhile since I,ve had them.

I've done some flower close-ups with 100-400 plus 500D (near the long

end, and I think mostly at F11) and was favorably impressed with the

projected slides. I have not done a direct comparison with the 100/2.8

macro on the same subject (which is almost certainly better optically), nor do I have suitable resolution targets, so I can't produce any resolution figures or other objective measures of image quality. Advantages of the combo are increased working distance, the ability to zoom, and the 500D is a bit lighter and smaller than the macro (backpacking with 100-400).

Someone suggested using extension tubes with a zoom. 2-element closeup lenses are much more convenient for the simple reason that when you add an extension tube to a zoom it becomes a varifocal lens, that is, you have to re-focus whenever focal length is modified.

Joseph, you are right... but I still use tubes with wide angle zooms despite the inconvenience, for two reasons:

 

1)They allow closer focusing.

2)The closeup lenses cause vignetting at short focal lengths.

 

A case could be made that using tubes with fixed lenses is even more inconvenient; whenever focal length is modified you must first change lenses, then you have to refocus anyway!

 

Actually I keep both tubes and diopters in my bag. Both have their uses and the tubes, especially, are very light.

Ok, I shot a roll of insects & flowers with the 100-400/500D combo. The slides came out surprisingly sharp but it's a pretty unwieldy combination to shoot with. Don't even think about using it without a tripod. The big gap between 500mm (most distant focus with 500D) and 5.9' (close focus without it) is a major inconvenience (small lizards love to pose in this gap). Because this is a push-pull zoom, it becomes a varifocal with the addition of the diopter just as it would with a tube. The 77mm 500D is very heavy. It's certainly faster to change lenses than to "slap on" the 500D. Conclusion: This combination works, but I doubt I'll ever use it. I think there's a better solution in almost any shooting situation: a macro lens, a shorter lens with tubes or the 58mm diopter (zoom or fixed), or this lens with tubes all seem more useful IMHO.