macro lens substitutes...

[benbrowner_browne]

This is my first post, after reading much on the forum... You guys have already answered so many of my

questions. Thank You Very Much for your passive help. On to my question...

 

I have a 5d and I'm looking to start in to some macro work. I wanted to buy a 180mm L series, but read a

post explaining that a better choice would be to splurge for the 70-200 2.8L with a 1.4 xtender to get

closer. I like the idea of having that awesome lens to be able to do so much of a variety of things instead

of spending the 1300.00 for the strictly macro lens.

 

My main question, if anyone can help, is how much closer to my shooting subject will I be able to get to by

using the 1.4 extender on the 70-200L? It currently focuses around 4.3 feet at the nearest.

 

I know this knocks it down to f/4, but the macro stands at 3.5, not that much difference. I like the idea of

being able to get 1.5' away from my subject with the macro, but would settle for the 3' range or so. Can I

expect this with the 70-200 paired with the extender...?

 

Thank you in advance for your help. You guys have been great to me already. -Benjamin

[mike_earussi1]

You won't get any closer, it's just that the image will be 1.4x larger. If you want to get closer then you will need to use extension tubes. Even then you still won't be in the 1:1 macro range. For that you'd need to use diopters on top of everything else. If you really need to shoot in the macro range but don't want to spend $1300 then either get the Canon 100 macro for $450 or the Sigma 150mm macro for $700.

[brucecyr]

"Thank You Very Much for your passive help."

 

Actually I think "vicarious" is more accurate than "passive", based on all the sweat I generate hereabouts :-)

 

The 1.4X TC will help, but it will put you at 280mm, which would require shooting at 1/300th of a sec or faster to insure blur-free hand-help shooting, unless you have the IS version.

 

If you are interested in genuine macro shooting, you can profit from reading this test:

 

http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

 

of these 8 lens:

 

- Tamron 2.8/90 SP AF

 

- Sigma 2.8/105 EX AF

 

- Canon 2.8/100 USM

 

- Tamron 3.5/180 AF DI

 

- Sigma 3.5/180 HSM AF

 

- Canon 3.5/180L USM

 

- Sigma 2.8/50 AF EX

 

- Canon 2.8 MP-E65

[brucecyr]

"hand-held" vs. "hand-help", although that works too is a disjointed way :-)

[tsantes]

Canon 100mm Macro...

[beauh44]

What Tony just said.

[johnson_d.]

I've used my 70-200 2.8L as a "macro" lens for many years using various combinations of extension tubes, TC and close-up lenses. The main difficulty I had with this setup is that it's just too dang heavy to handhold at high magnification. I also felt that image quality near 1:1 left plenty to be desired. I eventually bought the Canon 100mm and would recommend a true macro lens if you care about the quality of your macro photos.

[mukul_dube]

I now use a 35 mm macro lens with an Olympus digital SLR, but for 30+ years I did reasonably good close-up and macro work with a Canon film SLR and extension tubes. I wonder, though, if inexpensive manual extension tubes can be had for the EOS system.

[benbrowner_browne]

Thank you for all the great answers. You realize that I am unfamiliar with tubes, extenders,

and you help anyways. I believe I would like to be able to shoot in 1:1 after talking with some

others today. I should go for what is needed over what would be more versatile in this

situation. I will go with the 100mm macro. Why has nobody responding gone with a 180mm?

[kari v]

"Why has nobody responding gone with a 180mm?"

 

Big, heavy and costs over $1000?

[ken schwarz]

I'll go ahead and plug the 180/3.5 macro! It gives you more working distance and more background blur at a given f-stop for a given image size, which can be a plus to isolate your subject. You are paying for a top-flight instrument. It is heavy and bulky, but you can remove the tripod collar.

[mendel_leisk]

What Beau said.

[mendel_leisk]

Don't know what lens you have, but if you need a standard range zoom, the Canon 24-70 is highly regarded, a good fit on the 5D, and can focus quite close: not a proper macro but at it's long end can get down to an image area around 4"x6".

[johnson_d.]

Mendel just reminded me of something. The 24-70 is my second favorite "macro" lens, right behind my 100mm macro. I use mine for closeups more than I ever thought I would. It's versatile and excellent within it's magnification limits. In fact it's excellent across the board.

[brucecyr]

"I wonder, though, if inexpensive manual extension tubes can be had for the EOS system."

 

Yes, but you get almost as little as you pay for :-)

 

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=canon+EOS+extension+tubes&category0=

[les_gyug1]

Canon posts this sort of information in tables that should be available with a quick search somewhere on the net.

 

The closest I have here in paper form is for the 70-200/2.8 (not the IS version). The 1.4x extender increases the magnification from 0.16x to 0.22x. The table does not give info on actual focusing distance with the 1.4x. That is about one-quarter life-size, which is not even close to real macro of 1:1, so don't count on this solution to do much macro work.

 

Cheers,

Les

[lester_wareham]

You can do quite well with an ordinary lens and tubes, particularly with a good prime rather than a zoom, but there is no substitute for a real macro lens for macro work.

 

I would recommend the 100mm f2.8 macro as a general macro lens rather than the 180mm. The 180mm lens is fine but heavy to handhold, the 100mm is much more handholdable, at least as good IQ and provides plenty enough working distance for most insects if you develop your stalking skills.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I have the 180/3.5, and the 70-200/2.8 I.S.

 

The 180 is a high quality, specialty lens. It is not terribly useful at non-macro distances, mainly because it's AF is slower. In fact it will tend to "hunt" an awful lot if the limiter switch isn't used properly, especially in less than ideal lighting.

 

In my opinion the 180 is also way too long a macro lens for much use on 1.6X crop cameras, which are what I personally use most now. Of course, your 5D is full frame and my 180 saw a lot more use when I shot exclusively with film cameras. The extra reach was always useful with any critters that bite, or might be scared away if approached too closely. I'm sure my 180 will again see a lot of use if/when I have a full frame D-SLR like your 5D.

 

The 70-200/2.8 is one of my most used lenses. It's big, it's heavy, it's expensive, it's intimidating and in no way subtle. It's got excellent image quality, AF is fast and accurate, it's very durable, it's versatile and it gets the job done. I use it for events, sports, etc., and my shoulders and arm remind me just how much I use it after a 12-hour shooting day.

 

I have also used my 70-200 with extension tubes, for close-up/macro work. Not a lot, but at times when I didn't have my 180 or 100 macro lenses with me and a macro or near macro photo op came up. For many years I've simply made a habit of keeping a set of extension tubes in my camera bag. They are small and easily stowed, a quick solution any time you need closer focusing with practically any lens. I've used them behind lenses from 20mm to 500mm.

 

In my Canon kit I have the Kenko extension tube set (10, 20 and 36mm) as well as two Canon 12mm and one Canon 25mm. The Canon are metal and the Kenko are plastic, but it's hard to tell the difference side by side. Others have reported flexing with the Kenko, but I can't say I've ever had a problem. OTOH, I rarely use more than one tube, and it's when a bunch are combined they are more likely to flex. I think the Kenko set is a better value at about $170. The Canon sell for $90 to $130 apiece (12mm and 25mm).

 

Between some longer tubes and some careful post-processing/cropping of images, you could probably get pretty close to an effective "1:1" with the 70-200 lens. Personally, I find I don't need that high magnification all that often.

 

I also have and use the Canon 1.4X II (and 2X II). I'll use the 1.4X on the 70-200 when I don't have a 300mm lens with me, and it gives quite good results. I experimented with the 2X on that lens, years ago, but was never very satisfied with the image quality. OTOH, I use both 1.4X and 2X on 300 and 500mm lenses with very good results.

 

Frankly I can't recall ever using both the 1.4X and any extension tubes, on the 70-200. I guess I've just never had reason to do so. Anyway, I'd be a little careful as that would put a lot of weight and torque on the connections, with a heavy camera hanging on the back of it (worse because all my cameras have vertical grips).

 

Something to consider when adding one or more extension tubes and/or a teleconverter (which Canon calls "Extenders", making for more than a little confusion), they all cause some light loss. You lose one stop of light with a 1.4X teleconverter, two stops with a 2X. Light loss with extension tubes isn't noticeable with shorter ones, or even just a single tube (the camera's meter compensates anyway). But, using a stack of them for higher magnification can add up to more light loss (a flash is very helpful for macro shooting, anyway, since small apertures are needed to get much depth of field).

 

Light loss also slows down auto focus. Also, the more connections there are - such as between multiple tubes or tubes an teleconverters combined - further slows down AF as each connection degrades the electronic communication between lens and camera a tiny amount. Several extra connections compound the slowing.

 

Just how much AF slows down depends upon the combination of lens speed, amount of light lost , and any particular camera model's AF sensor capabilities. With significant loss, only the center AF point might be active. With more, AF might not be possible at all, and the viewfinder might get dim enough to make manual focus more difficult.

 

Now, auto focus may not be of great value with much macro work, anyway. I often turn it off. Macro focusing is often accomplished by moving the entire lens and camera assembly closer to or further from the macro subject, rather than adjusting the focus ring on the lens. However, focus confirmation in Canon cameras stays active even with AF turned off, and can be quite useful.

 

Most macro work is far more easily done on a tripod, anyway, so I don't see difficult hand holding the 70-200 for this purpose as any sort of issue. (The 180 isn't a great deal smaller and lighter, anyway.) I've managed it both ways, or propped it up on an up-side-down paint bucket, laid prone on the ground with it, etc. There's always a monopod and a beanbag in my car, and usually a tripod and kneepads, too.

 

You can only carry so many lenses around with you. Sometimes you have to make one do double duty. I think most people would find the 70-200/2.8 I.S. a more versatile lens, overall.

 

I have to agree that the ideal is to have and use dedicated macro lenses. The Canon 100/2.8 and 180/3.5 are both very good. There appear to be some other excellent macros, both in the Canon line and third party lenses. But, I haven't used them and can't really comment with any specifics.

 

In the end, if you don't already have some moderate tele primes or zoom lenses in your kit, I'd have to recommend the 70-200/2.8 over the 180 macro, just for it's general utility. I highly recommend spending the extra for the I.S. version, too, if at all possible.

 

If you plan to do a lot of traveling, had a lot of other lenses to carry around as well, or used a smaller camera like the XT/XTi I might recommend the 70-200/4 I.S. instead. However, due to it's smaller aperture, it is a little more limited in it's ability to blur background, and with teleconverters or extension tubes. Also, it's sold without the tripod mounting ring, which you would probably want for any close-up/macro work, and which adds $160 to the final cost of the lens. A tripod ring is included with the 70-200/2.8 lenses.

 

Hope this helps with your decision.

[willhl]

The main question is, why do you need your macro to be 180mm? Do you need a v. large working distance? Otherwise I'd go for a macro around 100mm, on a 1.6 crop camera it gives me heaps of working distance plus it is cheaper, more portable and easier to use.

[JDMvW]

If you are photographing live subjects that move, then the longer the macro the better.

 

Alan, you ought to rework that answer and post it somewhere.

 

There is a somewhat different discourse here at

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/

[rocco1]

The 70-200mm f2.8L is alway's a good idea, no matter what you want to do. I use a 500D Close up lens, and the results I get is quite nice, maybe not to everyone's taste, but I get work done with it.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6539275