Canon 100-400 with canon 500d vs. canon 100mm and 180mm macros

[blake_yantis]

I am trying to decide whether to purchase a canon 100mm or 180mm

macro, or to just buy a canon 500d filter for my 100-400 f4-5.6 is

usm lens?

 

 

 

Could anybody tell me more about this option?

 

What is the minimum focusing distance?

Does it hold its quality at 400mm?

Also, what is the maximum magnification? The 50mm just doesn�t do

the job for insects and butterflies.

 

 

Any personal recommendations?

Thanks so much for any help you can offer. Photo.net has sure saved

me some time and money over the years.

 

 

 

Take care,

 

Blake Yantis

[bob_hum]

The answer depends on how much macro photography you intend to do. Using a dedicated macro lens is much more satisfying (for me) than dealing with supplementary equipment (filters or extension tubes). I'd recommend a 100/2.8. In addition to being easier to handle for macro pictures, it offers you an excellent short telephoto lens when you don't want to deal with the size and weight of the 100-400.

[sergey_oboguev]

<p>Blake,

 

<p>Minimum focusing distance is, obviously, about 50 cm (or, rather, minimum focusing distance is about 45cm, and maximum focusing distance is about 55cm; or may be it is 47cm - 53cm range or so). Quality is not degraded that much, compared to quality without diopter. I am not sure about magnification, but it is something on the order of 1:1.5 or so (using film body with no crop factor).

 

<p>However, there are other factors to consider and if you expect to shoot insects and butterflies, 100-400 may be not the preferred solution for two reasons:

 

<p><b>First</b>, it is (more often than not) SLOW to focus with 500D on (even more so if you use midrange body such as D60 or Elan rather than high-end one). By the time it is through, insect may be gone or move on to next flower (then you have to start over... and over... and over). With dynamic subjects such as bees, for example, you might end up having to approach subject a dozen of times (literally) before being able to fire a shot.

 

<p>In comparison, 70-200/4 with TC1.4 and same 500D is MUCH faster to focus.

 

<p>It is possible to get shots with 100-400, of course, but on the whole it is sure recipe for frustration.

 

<p><b>Second</b>, while zooms are convenient for shooting dynamic subjects because you can zoom out to locate the subject at all, then center it in frame and zoom in on it (...whereas at maximum focal distance you'd spend several times the time hunting with lens in attempt to locate where the subject is and get it in frame; and again by the time you are through it may move on...) ... so while zooms are convenient in this respect, it does not quite apply to push-pull zooms. Major reason is that after you centered your insect in the frame and try to zoom on it, all it sees is a huge pipe in its immediate vicinity extending towards it. In many cases, this would scare insect away. (Not to mention, it also affects your positioning and takes time and some effort.) Besides, after you extended the barrel and likely changed your position in the process, you'd need to run through focusing cycle again, and as I said it is slow on 100-400 + 500D. 70-200 is much better in this respect since barrel length does not change when zooming in.

 

<p>These are basically the reasons why I prefer 70-200 + TC1.4 + 500D over 100-400 + 500D. At least for flash based hand-held macro.

 

<p>With static objects, of course, 100-400 would be preferable over 70-200 setup for greater magnification. And for non-flash hand-held macro its IS would be useful.

 

<p>I do not own and have not tried 100mm or 180mm macro, but I would expect them to be much faster (in terms of AF) than 100-400 + 500D, in same category as 70-200; and I would surely expect them to be sharper; though I think the difference in sharpness is likely to be not that great if you maximize for DOF, i.e. high aperture (owners might comment on their experience regarding this).

 

<p>Other advantage of 100mm and 180mm is that you are not constrained to small (ca. 5 cm) zone around 50cm distance to subject. (With 500D, if you get out of this zone, camera will not focus.)

 

<p>However, 100mm and 180mm do not have IS, so if you expect to do natual light (flashless) hand held macros, that's something to consider.

 

<p>As for me, my current "bug" setup is D60 + 70-200/4 (2.8 IS would be better in some cases, for IS part) + (optionally) TC 1.4 + 500D + (single or dual) 550EX on Wimberley brackets. If bugs were a major thing for me, I'd consider getting 180mm, but otherwise I am content with present setup.

[yakim_peled1]

The 500D is 135$. 100 macro is 470$. 180 macro is 1200$.

 

I'd start with the 500D.

[jim_smith6]

Try this:

 

The Nikon 5T (same quality as canon's 2 element) is $40.

 

or

 

The Sigma 180 EX HSM macro can be bought for less than $500 new, and supposedly rivals the Nikkor and Canon counterparts.

[brian_tao]

Except that the Nikon 5T (and 6T) diopters are only available in the 62mm diameter size. Blake would need the Canon 500D in the 77mm size for his 100-400mm lens. I'm picking up a 500D for my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses (same filter sizes).

[xian_xu]

I'm looking into macro photography right now. I have a 70-200/4 and plan to buy a close-up lens rather than buying a separate macro lens since I'll only use it now and then. However, it seems canon does not make any 500D in the size of 67mm (for 70-200/4). I read on the internet that someone is using step down ring and a 6T on canon 70-200/4. Since 6T is actually smaller (62mm) than 70-200/4, I was expecting some vinetting. Anyone has experience in this setup?

[pontus_gustavsson]

You won't get any vignetting, but the step-down lens will work as smaller aperture which means you lose some light.

[freelance]

I have the 100 mm, I am very happy and I would not pay 135 $ for a 500D. Later, I would have 135 less for the 100 mm that I am sure you will finally buy. You couldn?t stop thinking of it.