thoughts on macro lenses

[park_trot]

<p>Hi all. I shoot a 7D and love to shoot macro for fun. I currently have the 50mm F2.5 and am looking to upgrade. I always shoot on a heavy Manfotto tripod and use a trigger release with mirror lockup enabled. In general I tend to shoot flowers, however, I am not opposed to broadening my macro horizons. So I will open the floor... What would you buy assuming money was no object? (It always is but its a great place to start). I should also mention that at this point I am leaning towards the MPE 65. I usually use live view to focus manually so I am not too concerned that it has no autofocus.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

[SCL]

<p>You might want to read the section under the learning tab above on Macro. It has some reasonable suggestions for you to consider.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>The MPE 65 is an extreme, but awesome, macro. You will probably need a flash system to go with it, if you don't already have one. I assume you're aware the MPE 65 is unable to focus farther away than 1:1 magnification? That is to say, the lowest magnification it can achieve is twice as high as the highest magnification the 50/2.5 macro achieves. So you'll have a gap there where neither lens will precisely frame a subject.</p>

<p>The 100mm L macro is also awesome and will increase your working distance and allow you to work without a tripod in many cases. Longer macro lenses, like the Sigma 150/2.8 macro or the Canon 180/3.5 L macro, will have even longer working distances. Longer working distance helps a lot with lighting and working with live subjects.</p>

<p>On the other end of the budget scale, there's the Canon Life Size Converter EF for the 50mm you already have. It's not too expensive and many people seem to be happy with it.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>What would you buy assuming money was no object?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I generally shot flowers, and money was no object...</p>

<ul>

<li>MP-E65 + a macro focusing rail for flowers and other stuff at 1x-5x. The MP-E65 is very hard to focus, the focus control affects magnification (and therefore, your composition) more than it affects focus. So, you adjust the MP-E65 to get the composition you want, then move it, and the camera, towards your subject with a rail to focus. The Novoflex Castle-L is the king of rails, at about $280. The Velbon Magnesium is pretty good, at $90. And several LED lights with goosenecks, because the MP-E65 is hard to light around.</li>

<li>Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar T, for flowers at less than 1x. More working distance than the 55mm, and it's about as sharp as macro lenses get, but the bokeh is still nice in the out of focus areas. (get a bellows, and it can to to about 2x mag, at 100mm working distance, which is very handy, much easier to light than the MP-E65.</li>

<li>Canon 90mm TS-E, with a couple of extension tubes. I love a tilt/shift macro lens for nature work, there's so many interesting compositions that become possible when you can tilt the plane of focus a bit, and don't have to be absolutely perpendicular to every flower.</li>

</ul>

[paddler4]

<p>There have been LOTS of postings here about this, so you should do a search.</p>

<p>I do more macro than anything else, so for what it is worth, here is my advice.</p>

<p>In shooting flowers, magnification in the range of 1:2-2:1 is about all I want. an MPE-65 would be overkill for that. If you want more magnification, it's the way to go. for the range I do, a standard macro lens with a set of kenko tubes does just fine.</p>

<p>I also shoot with a crop-sensor camera, and I have two lenses: the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 and the EF 100mm f/2.8 L. The L lens is superb, and when I bought it, I thought I would end up selling my 60mm, but the fact is, I found that I often prefer the 60mm for tripod-based indoor shots of flowers. I like the working distance better. On the other hand, if you do bugs, it is very short, even on a crop-sensor camera.</p>

<p>If you haven't shot closer than 1:1, ease into it. It is very tough. I suggest to people that they start with a conventional 1:1 lens, and when they are comfortable with that, add a short tube, then a longer one, etc. If you get that close, you will also probably want to stack images to get more depth of field. I usually use Zerene for that.</p>

<p>I'll add one that I took with the 60mm (I think--stacking removed some of the exif data).</p>

<p><img src="http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Nature/Flowers-and-mushrooms/2010-03-10-195109-ZS-DMap-2/807344506_FWHxE-L.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="600" /></p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>With mpe60 you'll only be able to do close-ups of stamens and such - magnification starts at 1:1 and goes up from there. There is no infinity focus. Think of it like a microscope that you hook onto your camera.</p>

<p>If you're looking for a Cadillac macro lens, be sure to check out Zeiss 100/2.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/673512-REG/Zeiss_1762_852_Makro_Planar_T_100mm_f_2.html</p>

[pturton]

<p>For your interests the EF 180L might be most appropriate. The longer focal length gives you more working distance and it also accepts Canon tele-converters. Instead of the 180L I use the 300 f/4 L IS with and without extension tubes for flowers and similar sized subjects.<br>

The EF 100 f/2.8 USM macro has served me well but when I regularly began adding extension tubes to go beyond 1:1, I purchased the MPE 65 1-5X macro lens along with the MT-24 EX macro flash. Unless my subject is an inanimate object that does not move, I never use my tripod or RRS macro rail with this lens. I shoot all my live subjects with the flash set to Manual because the ETTL pre-flash causes most crtitters to move before the main flash fires. The short flash duration acts as the shutter to stop camera and subject motion.<br>

Live view works well with the MPE 65 for stationary subjects but chasing an insect with it would be an exercise in frustraion. Also plan on using a flash with this lens - the light falls off rapidly as the magnification is increased.<br>

With practice handholding this lens at 3:1 is not a problem. A bit more practice and technique and 5X handholding is also obtainable and necessary for some subjects.</p>

 

[robin_sibson1]

<p>A very large proportion of my photographs are botanical close-ups. In my experience, for that purpose you do not need a lens longer than 60mm on 1.6-factor or 100mm on FF, indeed, anything with a narrower angle of view (such as 100mm on 1.6-factor) can be positively inconvenient, certainly for fieldwork. I used the 50/2.5 for many years when there was no alternative. It is a fine lens optically, but handling is clunky and to go beyond ×0.5 you need the Life Size Converter (which actually works well, but is something extra to carry and swap around). I still have my 50/2.5 (and, indeed, the LSC) but now use it almost exclusively for copying artwork on FF. My preferred combination for botanical work is now the 100/2.8L IS on FF, second choice is the excellent EF-S 60/2.8 on 1.6-factor. It would, of course, be nice to have IS on the EF-S lens, but I can live without it, and I much prefer it to the 100/2.8 for botanical work on 1.6-factor. Insects, that's a different matter.</p>

<p>So my recommendation – sorry I can't suggest a more expensive choice! – is simply the EF-S 60/2.8. Of course, if you really want to spend some money, you could buy a 5DII and the 100/2.8L IS, and then there's macro flashes, angle finder, focusing rail, a Gitzo Explorer (believe me, the ultimate tripod for close-up work), a SpectraView or similar monitor, ...</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>Even though I am not the one asking for help , I want to thank you for posting such sensible advice. When I started macro work, I stumbled on your suggested configuration by chance , but it would have been nice to have this advice at the time.</p>

<p>I'll add only one thing. You wrote that using a crop-sensor camera, focal lengths >60mm are inconvenient for field work with flowers. I'd add that longer lenses are even more inconvenient indoors, at least with my setup. It's often hard enough to sufficient distance with longer lenses. That's why I most often use my inexpensive 60mm and leave my 100mmL packed away when I am doing indoor shots of flowers.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Dan, thanks for your kind comments about my posting.</p>

<p>I meant to add one small tip for using the 7D(or other 1.6-factor body)+60/2.8 combination. Although there is no substitute for a proper macro flash (I use the MR-14EX, usually with a mixed flash+daylight technique, but the same would apply to the MT-24EX), sometimes when one is "travelling light" the weight, bulk and general clumsiness of these devices is unwelcome. I have found that the 7D on-camera flash actually works quite well for close-ups when the camera is held horizontally, provided you use a Fong Puffer (neat little device) to diffuse the flash. I used to dismiss on-camera flashes. My film EOS background was EOS-1, EOS-3, EOS-1V, and that makes you a bit sniffy about such things, I'm afraid I have to admit! But actually having one on my early DSLR bodies, starting with the 20D, made me realise that they have their uses, and although I hardly dare say this, I would not actually mind if the next-generation 5D had one.</p>

[park_trot]

<p>Thank you to everyone who has posted. At this point it seems that you have convinced me to skip the MPE 65 for now. I still really want one but I think that I would be better served by upgrading my 1:1 macro first. I have never bought anything but Canon glass but part of me is considering the Zeiss. I have yet to read a negative review about it and I am obsessed with quality. So at this point I am trying to decide between the Canon 100 L series or the Zeiss 100. Obviously there is quite a price jump...Thoughts?</p>

[ed_okie]

<p>"...obsessed about quality", Canon, Zeiss, etc.<br>

Quality = technique, user skills, experience. Buying hardware is not the answer, though it is a common thought; whatever is your specific area of interest and local subject availability determines eventual hardware needs. Macro work is very specialized; you grow into it, not buy into it. With repetitive experience the hardware answers become obvious.</p>

[park_trot]

<p>@ Ed Okie--SLAM! Ouch that hurt! Having worked rather successfully as an equine photographer (over 100 internationally published images) I do not consider myself a rank amateur. Further, the old saying that you are referring to that it is the photographer and not the equipment is simply not true in my experience! When I shoot professionally it is usually in low light (arenas) situations of very fast moving horses. I need every ounce of my f2.8 L series 70-200 lens as well as my super high iso camera to create well exposed crisp images with as little noise as possible. I also know that my equipment will become completely outdated within years or even months of its release. I accept that fact. As to my comment about quality I was referring to the "chronographlike" quality of precisely turned metal. I abhor plastic and try whenever possible to buy products that are the absolute best made in their respective class.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>My favorite macro lens is an old 1:1 60mm Contax C/Y macro lens on a C/Y adapter. It acts like a Canon MPE 65 when focussing, but it goes form infinity to 1:1. A later version of the same lens only goes to 1:2.</p>

[ed_okie]

<p>Since you're tech-oriented, start with (if you don't already have) a stellar tripod and head (quick release, Arca-type). The combination will likely cost more than many camera bodies but there is no substitute for a solid foundation. Buy quality, tripod and head, and it'll last you for decades; in the long run be less expensive than a series of mediocre almost-pretty-good tripods.<br>

Quality: you won't go wrong with RRS products, Really Right Stuff in Calif. Arguably the best in the business. Mongoose tripod heads fit in that Gold-standard category, too, but are more wildlife or motion-oriented, gimbal heads.<br>

Macro work, a piece of very inexpensive software will blow your doors off. Helicon Focus. A bit quirky to use but, oh my, the results possible. Stellar. I think it's only $30, maybe $50, made in the Ukraine.<br>

Danylo Kozub is the prime mover and shaker behind the scenes - go through their website:<br>

http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html<br>

Monitor, color calibration - quality starts there. Expect to spend as much as you did, if not more, than you did for that stellar tripod and head. LR3.3 or PhotoShop CS5 are the best in the business; I recommend LR, almost a stand-alone product. CS5 becomes the icing on the cake. Add onOne's Fractals Sharpener, mix in Noel Carboni's Digital Photo Pro sharpening software and it's off to the races - quality in spades, incredible results. Requires PS+GFractals+Noel's Sharpener. Unmatched results. Period.<br>

http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/dSLR_Fractal_Sharpen.html<br>

Notice I haven't mentioned lenses, nor camera bodies. It's the behind-the-scenes attributes that define excellence, not "the camera," nor "the lens" per se. Skill at using them is your mission. Or failure. The most exotic of lenses fall flat in comparison when it comes to macro work. Vibration is an image killer. Post-processing is mandatory. Exposure and composition is everything; expression likewise, when it comes to people or animal pictures, horses included. Ears up? If not your horse shot is dead. Nothing to do with the lens nor camera body.</p>

[ed_okie]

<p>Park, an apology for possibly coming across too sharp in initial comments. It was unintended, but it is simply that of seasoned advice and experience. Glance through the list of endless forum queries and all too often the underlying question centers around the mind-think "what is the best XYZ to buy for a (fill in the blank, portrait lens, sports, or whatever)?" ...that will make me look professional. a.k.a. quick & easy.<br>

More ironic: 98% of the information already exists in this worthy website... if you search for it.</p>

<p>'Nuff said.</p>

[park_trot]

<p>@Ed--Thank you for clarifying your position. Yes, I use photoshop everyday as well as many other post processing software programs. I also have invested in serious Manfrotto tripods and heads. I know that many people disagree with me on this but I believe that no matter how good post processing gets it can never recover what wasn't there in the first place. To that end I will probably spend my life pursuing faster and clearer lenses, and camera bodies that have larger and crisper sensors. In my mind there will never be a point when an image is too clear or too high resolution. I could be shooting the 60 mp Hasselblad and i'd still want more! The F.95 Leica 50mm is still not fast enough to me. The Sigma 200-500 F2.8 could be still faster and zoom farther. When a horse is going through the ring and my Canon is set to high speed trigger (6-7 fps) I still find myself wanting much more. Perhaps if I could get 20 fps I might find that "perfect" shot?<br>

Now back to macro. I am well aware that there are many other factors to creating stellar macro images. What I was asking originally and I would like to thank all the people who have addressed it is...What is the ultimate Macro lens (or lens set-up i.e. bellows) for sale for a Canon EOS digital camera?</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>One important thing to keep in mind is that perfection does not exist in real life. "More than good enough" does often exist. A Canon 100 2.8 USM macro certainly fits into "More than good enough" but I prefer the the manual focus Contax 60mm lens not because of the optics but because I like the physical macro focusing setup more than the Canon lens that is designed for autofocus. You will want to manually focus in live view for anything that isn't moving.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I also shoot with a 7D. I have the 100 f/2.8L macro, and it is stellar. I also use a tripod and focusing rail; the rail is invaluable when focus stacking. I've also found that live view is much easier to use with the rail for making sure the right part of each shot is in focus. I use freeware for that, Combine ZM. Works great.</p>

<p>I recently picked up the MP-E 65mm 1x-5x. It's also a stellar lens, but as has been said, you need a lot of light, and at 5x, you'll need to use focus stacking on anything but flat objects (DOF at f/11 is 0.19mm!). I think that if I didn't already have experience using the 100mm at 1:1, I'd have had a very hard time with the MP-E.That said, the MP-E at 5x will take you into details you'd never see otherwise.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Park, let me plug the Canon 180/3.5, which is a superlative lens in every dimension and one which is sure to please you from both an image quality and usability standpoint. The focus has zero play and is therefore very precise. While it's true that a long lens macro gives you working room for shooting bugs and so on, it's also very nice for flowers because it's easy to throw background out of focus. Contrast and color saturation are jaw-dropping. Because Canon makes several other very well-regarded macro lenses for less money, the 180 is used less often, so work that benefits from its distinctive properties stands out all the more.</p>