k_kujo_hurt

Has anyone tried to use this lens for macro work? That is, with

diopters, extension tubes, or some combination thereof? If so, how

does it perform? Pictures I can see? Is the 70-200/2.8 better for

macro with diopters, etc.? By better I mean sharper. Thanks in

advance for all of the answers.

The Canon 180mm macro is a superb lens in all respects. Sharpness, color, etc. It's a real joy to own. The extra distance is a great benefit as many insects are skiddish and often, at least in the brush country of South Texas, the brush itself prevents you from getting closer to the subject. As is the case with all lenses, tripod shots are best. However, this lens is in fact handholdable. I would recommend the use of a good flash in this situation which would allow for faster shutter speeds but you can attain sharp photos handholding this lens. I'd still recommend the tripod if you're able but I wouldn't hesitate to handhold if the situation called for it. Why don't more people own it? Most likely cost but if you can afford one, this is the lens I would highly recommend. If you were to go third party, Tamron would likely be the next best choice. You can do wonderful work with 3rd party lenses but I've been down that road and though I still have a few, I'm slowly getting rid of them all in favor of Canon glass....L glass if I can afford it. I found a superb deal on the 180 macro on ebay and I don't plan on ever getting rid of this lens. Oh, the tripod collar is great as it makes orientation easy. Best of luck.

Thanks Bill. Without having the 550 in hand, I was unclear how this might be done. Sounds easy enough to control from the 550 as you have described above. I think I'm going to go this route.

With one lens, I normally set the flash at -1. Can you give me a little more instruction on how to set the ratio with the 2 flash setup? Thanks.

Mark, thanks for the answer. I do have an off shoe cord that I currently use with the 420ex and a home made macro bracket similar to the one John Shaw describes in his books. Works well with one flash. The question for me now is whether to purchase a 550ex to use as a main light and using it to fire the 420ex as a slave. I don't know where I thought I read that the 420 when fired as a slave would not retain it's E-TTL properties so I was concerned it would fire at equal strength as the 550ex and I want to shoot it at less power than 550. From your post, what I read or perhaps interpreted about the 420 not retaining E-TTL was incorrect. When shooting macro with one light, I typically handhold the camera. If I were to use dual flash, I would likely shoot off a tripod, depending on the situation. The 180mm gives me good working distance.

I have been shooting macro with one 420ex speedlite but am wanting to

try dual flash. I've seen the MT-24 dedicated macro flash and it

looks pretty awesome but it's around $600. Is it worth it? I have a

180/3.5L macro lens and sometimes use the 70-200/2.8 with 500D. What

about getting a 550ex speedlite with an off-camera cord and using it

to fire the 420 ex as a slave unit? The 550ex would be cheaper than

the MT-24 but are there other costs involved? Does the whole system

retain E-TTL or are other accessory cords needed to retain this on

the 420? If so, when it's all said and done, are the costs about the

same? I could really use some help from someone experienced with

this. If I go the two speedlite route, I will likely purchase the

dual flash bracket from Kirk Enterprises so that cost has to be

added. Thanks in advance for all responses.

I'm not familiar with the Bogen tripods. I am familiar with the Gitzo models. The Gitzo's are great. The explorer will work superbly but it's only drawback is that it's only 50" tall w/out the column extended, w/out head of course. If you are taller than 5'8", this could be a problem. If you are working close to the ground then it should be a great tripod for you. I used to own a Giottos tripod and it was extremely versatile and great for macro use. Again, this is a short tripod w/out column extended so it will be the same issues as with the gitzo mentioned. I traded the Giottos for a Gitzo 1320 but loved the Giotto's. Had it just been taller, I would have kept it. It can support more weight (20+ lbs.) than the Gitzo 2220 (13 lbs). It's a sold tripod, just short. It gets low to the ground but you'll have to check the specks on giottos website. I think it was down around 4-5". It's about $50+ dollars cheaper than the Gitzo.

Thanks for the responses. I haven't decided which route to take yet but am leaning towards the sidekick.

I forgot to mention that I have a Kirk BH1. Thanks.

Can anyone comment ont their experience with either of these two

products? How secure are they? Ease of use? Worth the extra for the

full blown Wimberley? To be used with Canon 500/4 Thanks.

Kevin

I'm not about to add anything significant to this post, but I just couldn't resist... In Beau's application, I think the 50 is much greater than the 100. Why? Well, there is less working distance with the 50 and who would want more with such a subject? See, I told you I wouldn't add anything...just my attempt at silly humor.

Hey Yakim,

As for the remarks, I got the snide ones before getting caught up and posting something I shouldn't have (specifically, the *@#! word). I apologized to the good people for doing it but looking back I should have just ignored it all. Lesson learned. I suspect the person that left that snide remark probably feels the same way. He's probably a good guy. A cold beer and some good photo discussion and we'd likely just laugh at it all.

 

Now as for those words that ring a bell, yes, they do. I did do a search and I did read many, including Bob Atkins review but I still posted my question figuring that new people would add their experiences, not just those from previous posts. I don't recall seeing a comparison of just the Mk1 vs the 1.4 version though. Anyway, many new people did offer excellent opinions and the old faithful ones like you added some as well. I think you've answered nearly every one of my posts and your comments have been much appreciated. I aim to send you an email in August to see how your macro shots with the 62mm diopter on a 72mm lens faired. Thanks again.

Marcus,

I thought your posts were fine. I didn't clarify as well as I should have so your point was well taken. I'm not discounting the MkII simply because of its plastic mount, but also because of it's lack of depth of field scale, etc. I read Bob Atkin's review of the I and II versions so thought I would get user opinions of the 1.4 vs 1.8/MkI. I simply got lazy in my post and didn't mention the other reasons. I guess I figured everyone would focus on the 1.4 vs Mk1 question rather than the plastic mount comment. Anyway, given equal optical quality, I'd much prefer a metal mount lens over a plastic mount. That's my personal preference though. It was the post right after your first one that set me off. All other posts here have been excellent and appreciated, including all of yours. I'll clarify future questions a little better and simply ignore the snide remarks from others, if any. Thanks.

Thanks everyone for the answers. Mark, excellent point. I allowed myself to get caught up but when I posted my question, I really wanted to hear peoples experiences and see if anyone would post a link with photo comparisons. To me that was sensible. So to read the snide comment rubbed me wrong. If he didn't like my post, he should have just moved on to the next. Anyway, I think that's about enough with that regard. The rest of the posts have been informative and helpful, which is what this site is about. And, a few people did post some links to photo comparisons with the lenses and that was helpful to see as well.

For Macro, you could use a 62mm Nikon 5T (+1.5 diopter) or 6T (+3 diopter) with a step down ring on the 70-200/4 and still be able to use the hood on the lens. Both of these diopters are excellent quality. Check the posts here on the 70-200/4 and you will find mention of it as well as photo samples.

Thanks for those last two posts. I was able to review the pictures.

I'll put a reminder on my calendar to email you Yakim. Thanks. Neil, do you have some pics posted on this site with your macro setup?

To those who answered my question with the intentions of helping, I say thanks. In particular, I was hoping someone had tested these lenses side by side or knew of a link to someone who had so that I might see the comparisons. I appreciate all of your comments.

 

To those who had nothing better to offer but a snide remark, go *#@$ yourselves. People like you don't contribute anything positive to a great site such as this.

 

My apologies to the good people.

Which of these two lenses is better? I'm not interested in the

1.8/MkII version since it is a plastic mount. I'd appreciate

opinions/experience with these lenses. Thanks,

Kevin

Yakim,

Please let me know how this works on your 200 lens. I'd be interested in the results. Thanks,

Kevin

I don't own the 70-200/4 yet but do own the 180/3.5. I'm not sure if or when I'll get the f4 lens. I've put a few posts up getting different opinions based on scenarios I think I might run into with my shooting interests. I currently own the Tokina 80-200/2.8 and am still deciding whether to keep it or sell and replace with one of Canon's versions. I have been leaning toward the 70-200/4 for budget reasons but may hold out for the 2.8 version and hold onto the Tokina until I can make the upgrade without losing the 1 stop. I ask about the vignetting with the 180 and a 5T or 6T because if I get the 70-200/4, I'd like to know if I can use the same diopters with the 180 for increased magnification. I won't use it often that way but I do like having options. Thanks for the posts.

Kevin

Has anyone used a 62mm Nikon diopter 5T or 6T with the Canon 180/3.5

mm lens? The 180 takes a 72mm filter so you would need a step down

ring to use the diopters. What is the quality and any problems with

vignetting? I know you could purchase a 500D in 72mm but I may want

the other option if I end up purchasing the 70-200/4 lens. Thanks,

How many are using this lens with a diopter and/or extension for

macro photography? How do you like the results and do you feel the IS

makes a difference when handholding this lens in a macro setting?

I'm assuming you are using a 550ex or 420ex flash on some type of

macro bracket. Canon's 180/3.5 macro, which is often handheld with a

flash, does not have IS and results, even handheld can be excellent.

I know it's an older lens but I just wonder how much IS plays a part

in a macro setting. Thanks,

I didn't suspect the 28-70 or 24-70 would be great for macro but thought I would see what others might have experienced. How about the wide angle perspective? The 24/2.8 focuses to 0.25m while the 28-70/L focuses to 0.5 meters. Is this that significant?

 

I'm sure owners of this lens will rave about it for portrait type use. Has anyone else found a different use that they really like this lens for? Thanks.

I don't own this lens but have been eyeing it on ebay and hope to

acquire it. I'd love the 24-70/L but the better price will likely be

on the 28-70. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has ever tried to do

macro with this lens. I know that's not the primary reason people get

this lens and it wouldn't be my primary purpose either, I have a

180/3.5L for serious macro. I'm just curious if anyone has tried to

use the 28-70 for macro and what kind of results they obtained, as

well as how they got there (i.e., extension, diopter, etc). As for

wide angle, I'm shooting slide by the way, how did it perform? Can

you obtain the same results as a 28mm prime? Thanks,