Macro lens... 100/4.0 or 50/3.5?

[mike_r4]

Follow up question to a previous post in which I recieved much good

advice.

<p>

I want a macro lens mostly for flower close ups, still lifes, etc.

Mostly in the 1:5 to 1:3 range, I think. No "copy work". I will buy

either a 50 3.5 or a 100 4.0. Price is close enough not to be a

factor (KEH bargain prices). I will be using mostly Kodak Technical

Pan film, and I want to be able to make the biggest enlargements

possible/practical from film scans. I will be using a tripod, and

doing everything possible to ensure sharp images. Of course, I have a

limited supply of TP film, and I want to maximize it's usefulness.

<p>

So... my question is which should be the "sharpest"

(resolution/contrast) lens? I can get a 50 (I think "new fd"?), a 50

s.s.c., or a 100 s.c.. If they have been sold, I'll be looking again

at all s.c, s.s.c. 'new', etc. I have really tried to research this

question, but have not been able to find a direct comparison of any

kind. I have found many comments that each is "high resolution".

<p>

I understand that there may be some "distortion" from using the 50 at

very close distances. The 100 may be preferable for that reason.

Also, the working distance involved would seem to make the 100 more

desireable. The 50 would have a bit more DOF, though.

<p>

How would any of these lenses compare to my "normal" 50 1.4?

<p>

I will probably get the 100 s.c. unless someone can tell me it isn't

quite as sharp as one of the 50's (or if it's been sold). If they are

so close that I'm nitpicking, well, I'm sorry. ;^)

<p>

Thanks in advance for your advice.

[User_502260]

From what you have described as your likely subjects and magnification ratios I would recommend the 100. Once you start getting as close as 1:3 with a 50 the working distance will be very short. I prefer the shorter macro lens if I am shooting hand held and the longer macro lens if I am using a tripod.

 

My macro lenses for Canon FD/FL cameras are: 50mm f/3.5 Canon FL, 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 w/1:1 adapter, Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 and Panagor 55mm f/2.8. The Vivitar and Panagor are the same lens with different names. You can often get them for only $25 and they are quite good. If you decide on a 100mm Canon macro lens then you might supplement it with a 55mm f/2.8 Vivitar macro in the future.

 

Your depth of field will have to do with the magnification you are at and not the focal length of the lens you are using. If you have a chance, look for an old copy of The Manual Of Close-up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz. It was written more than 25 years ago but is still an excellent reference on the subject.

[peter_evans4]

In your position, I'd also consider the Tamron 90/2.5 (or thereabouts). I haven't used any of these lenses, but 90/100 would seem more usable than 50, and the Tamron is well regarded and easy to find and I think costs less than the Canon.

[gregory_nicholson]

For flower close-ups and still life photos, mostly in the 1:5 range, I like an 80-200 f/4 zoom with the 500D close-up lens. The zoom is ever so nice for precise cropping at close up ranges. Image quality with the Canon L version is superb. But that's not your question. Deciding between the 50 and 100 macro for static subjects boils down to how much background I want to include. When I set up a studio shot the background will be whatever I want so my choice is usually the 50mm macro lens. When outdoors I have to deal with what is available for a background so I choose the 100mm or 200mm macro lens. Using my camera at ground level allows me to choose just about any out of focus background color with the longer lenses.

 

I'm not going to say which lens is sharper because at close distances there are too many factors other than possible resolution that determine ultimate sharpness. Such as; a few well placed flashes can add a lot of sharpness and texture over a non-flash photo even if the available light is plentiful.

 

I would follow the good advice of reading Lester Lefkowitzs' The Manual Of Close-up Photography. You can find it at most Libraries, give yourself some time to study it well. There are many tricks of the trade that would help even a seasoned veteran in getting the most from macro equipment. Practice your new techniques on dime-store film and when you're satisfied with your results use your prized Kodak Technical Pan film.

 

Personally, for half-life sized flower shots, if limited to lenses in this price range, I would buy the FDn 100 f/4 macro or an FDn 200 f/4 and use an FD-50 extension tube with a Canon or Nikon brand two element close-up lens and leave the lens focused at infinity. For still life studio shots I would use the FDn 50 f/3.5 macro.

 

50 and 100 macro test results, just scroll down to find them.

 

http://members.aol.com/canonfdlenstests/default.htm

[pvp]

Either will do the job. Either can produce equally sharp, stunning images.<P>

If you ever need more magnification (i.e., more than 1:1) it's a bit easier to do with the shorter lens since you need less extension.<P>

My favorite lens for flower closeups is not a macro lens at all: the FD 135mm f/2.5, mounted on an autobellows.<P>

<CENTER><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/320627-lg.jpg"></CENTER><P><HR>

[dirk_dom]

I have both a 50 mm macro lens (Vivitar) and the 100mm F4 Fd macro lens from Canon.

 

I exclusively use the 50 mm to make duplications from prints on a copy stand. It focuses down to 1/1, you're about 3 inches away from the front, then.

 

The 100 mm I use in nature, mostly for flowers. I 've had it since 1978, and I've shot tens of thousands of images with it. Also, I dropped it a few times, without damage. Mechanically it's a very sturdy lens.

 

In nature, with the 50 mm you get so close to your subject, that you may wind up into your own shadow. The 50 mm is not very useful outside.

 

If you're patient , you can shoot insects (dragonflies, bees, butterflies) with the 100 mm. That is out of the queastion with the 50 mm.

 

The FD 100 mm macro needs a 50 mm extension tube to shoot between 1/2 and 1/1. Be sure to get it, as it's just there where you 'll get most of the action.

 

Optically, the 100 mm is a very good lens with very high sharpness and very good colour saturation.

 

Since about a year, I also own the FD 200 mm F4 macro. It costs a lot more than the 100 mm. I paid $ 660 for it in like new condition. Since I have it, I haven't used the 100 mm a single time in nature any more. It's a dream to shoot insects with it. And it focuses down to 1/1 without an extension tube, with only a stop of light loss.

 

If money is no object, and you plan to shoot in nature, I wouldn't hasitate: I'd buy the FD 200 mm macro.

 

 

Hope this is helpful,

 

 

Dirk.

[don_boyd3]

I have all three Canon Macro lenses. If a gun were held to my head so I could only have one it would be the 100mm f/4. I originally had the 100mm SC Breech Lock, had it stolen, then bought a nFD bayonet lock. Can't tell any difference. The 50mm Macro while an excellent normal lens doesn't give enough working distance between lens and subject. The 200mm Macro is a dream but sometimes too much of a good thing. Heavy and places a premium on a sturdy tripod. The above comment about DOF is correct. If, for example, you focused a 50mm Macro at 1:3 (a 4.5 inch subject fills the 1.5 inch slide) and the lens at f/8.0 then focused a 100mm Macro at the same 1:3 and the same aperture f/8.0, the DOF would be the same. The difference would be the 50mm lens would be perhaps 12 inches from the subject and the 100mm would be 24 inches from the subject. Another very very good book to read about flower/insect photography is John Shaw's "Close Ups in Nature". You will never regret buying a copy. Finally, I also bought a 100mm Macro "Bargin" grade from KEH and it was excellent. Cost me $165 and I never figured out why it was bargin grade.

 

Don Boyd

[mike_r4]

THANK YOU to everyone who responded! I think the 100 will be just what I need. The 200 would be nice, but money IS an object, and that's not in my budget. The weight and sturdy tripod would not be a problem, though. The 100 sounds like it will be a fine lens, and it sounds like the working distance will be much easier to deal with than with the 50.

<p>

I'm still a bit confused about the DOF issue. I'll look into this further for my own education. I don't think it's a major issue in my decision here, anyway.

<p>

I do appreciate all the advice. My next purchase will be a 100 macro.

[jtk]

Alan...BEAUTIFUL flower!

 

For some macro photography a flat field (like Canon macro) or conventional convex-field lens isn't quite perfect...if you're shooting a bug, for example, you may want a concave field in order to have more depth (focus wrapping around the beastie). You can get that easily and cheaply (when findable) with a lens reversing mount. Works especially well on a bellows-mounted telephoto lens, such as the conventional 200 f4 or 100 2.8.