Reading mode: Light Dark

Puffers PUF-01 diffusers on 24ex heads in a detachable way?

Go to last post
I have the MP-E 65, Canon 100mm Macro and the Sigma 180mm Macro, and they all perform superbly.

I have not really compared them with each other, however the 100mm is by far the most versatile lens. The MP-E 65 is obviously in a class of its own, however it is absolutely useless for normal closeup photography since anything bigger than my 35mm sensor will not fit.

The 180 is great for this - however the long focal length makes this lens only really useful on a tripod.

This is where the 100mm comes in - I can actually hand hold it and get about 70% keepers at 1/160. This allows me to get some balance with ambient light.

And regarding bokeh and sharpness? You decide:



100% crop:





--
Waldo Nell
 
Waldo,

that butterfly with it's partially translucent wings is a keeper, even with a
slightly blown highlights. However, the 100/2.8 macro is clearly not on
par even with the two other of your lenses To say nothing about the
180/3.5L macro and Ef-s 60mm. What I esp. dislike about the 100/2.8
macro is it sluggish AF speed (of course common with other longer macro
lenses). Therefore I much prefer just to add ETs and/or 500D (sometimes
even 250D) to the 200/2.8L, or 135/2L as they are both AF'ing like a breeze,
and this is just crucial to have anything close to success with IIFs :).
The usual swaying technique doesn't work for IIFs at all of course;

beautiful colors on the iguana,

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
jpr2 said:
Waldo,

that butterfly with it's partially translucent wings is a keeper,
even with a
slightly blown highlights.
Click to expand...
Your monitor might be out.... There are no blown highlights - all values (except a couple of pixels on the translucent wings themselves) are below (250,250,250).

However, the 100/2.8 macro is clearly not on
jpr2 said:
par even with the two other of your lenses To say nothing about the
180/3.5L macro and Ef-s 60mm. What I esp. dislike about the 100/2.8
macro is it sluggish AF speed (of course common with other longer macro
lenses). Therefore I much prefer just to add ETs and/or 500D (sometimes
even 250D) to the 200/2.8L, or 135/2L as they are both AF'ing like a
breeze,
and this is just crucial to have anything close to success with IIFs :).
The usual swaying technique doesn't work for IIFs at all of course;
Click to expand...
I agree - AF performance is slow. But then the Sigma 70mm and 105mm and 180mm macros are just as slow - if not slower. I was frustrated with my wife's new Sigma 70mm macro - the Canon 100mm macro felt much faster.

But I guess lots of this is personal preference. I would not sell my 100mm macro for any other lens. I cannot see how one can get more resolution from any other lens than that lens - I am convinced it is sensor limited (even on my 1Ds3), so there the MP-E65 and 180mm lenses do not make a difference. With regards to contrast - maybe, I have not tested this. Bokeh is as good as it gets at 100mm. I do not get why some people (like yourself) feel it is such a bad lens. You might have a "bad copy" ;)
jpr2 said:
beautiful colors on the iguana,
Click to expand...
Thanks.

--
Waldo Nell
 
Waldo Nell said:
Your monitor might be out.... There are no blown highlights - all
values (except a couple of pixels on the translucent wings
themselves) are below (250,250,250).
Click to expand...
Waldo,

no, no... the monitor is OK (and calibrated too), formally you are right, no px.
above that levels - what I meant was it would be much nicer to have all
these highlights on a thorax and abdomen resolved for details and different
shades - but this is a really minor CC;
Waldo Nell said:
But I guess lots of this is personal preference. I would not sell my
100mm macro for any other lens. I cannot see how one can get more
resolution from any other lens than that lens - I am convinced it is
sensor limited (even on my 1Ds3), so there the MP-E65 and 180mm
lenses do not make a difference. With regards to contrast - maybe, I
have not tested this. Bokeh is as good as it gets at 100mm. I do
not get why some people (like yourself) feel it is such a bad lens.
You might have a "bad copy" ;)
Click to expand...
I certainly did not dislike it [for a lack of resolution], only for a slow-slow
AF; and as I also have another lens in exactly the same FL (the Elmarit R
100/2.8 macro, which would be hard to beat by both focusing accuracy - it
has a 710 deg. focusing throw; and also for resolution = one of a highest
resolving macro lenses ever produced, perhaps THE highest :),

and, as I said before, I prefer fast primes plus ETs or 500D for a AF-limited
work, I just disposed of mine EF 100/2.8; little sadly, but with no real
regrets - then or since; no point to let it get dusty on my shelf if someone
else may be putting it to a right use even now :)) I can easily see that
you enjoy yours very much indeed, and even if there are lenses as good, or
better still, it does not imply this one is bad,

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
Hi jpr2 (say what is your real name?), so far I have not used the 500D on any macro lens, if I am after high mags I tend to use ETs. But as you know, ETs are a bit of a PITA and so I bought a 77mm 500D to use on my various L lenses; the 24-105, 70-200 & 100-400 as an alternative to ETs. On these lenses there (IMO) is notable image degredation, particularly on the 24-105 (my copy of this lens is quite soft anyway) & the 70-200, although have not used it yet with the 100-400. With extra glass, we should expect some image degredation, perhaps my 500D is perhaps not a great copy (have not compared it with others) but I have been very dissapointed with this filter. The other problem with this filter is that it is just so heavy and I can carry an entire Kenko set of ETs for the same weight with the capability of higher magnifications. Thus the 500D has been gathering dust.

Kind regards
Stephen
jpr2 said:
i'm using 500d sometimes on various lenses (including mpe65 once or
twice,
but id doesn't seem to lend ANY advantage = I was keen to find out
whether
it might lead to the increase of WD to 50cm :)), like 135/2L,
200/2.8L or
300/4L IS - all of which are known for their exceptional sharpness,
and didn't
notice any loss of resolution when applied to a macro world,

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
Click to expand...
 
Dear Waldo, I have to agree with the versatility of the 100 macro lens and I also obtain many more keepers with this than my 180L or MPE65. Now I am talking about my copy of the 100, but this is not as sharp (but still quite sharp) or as contrasty as the others. So far I have not had my 60 all that long, but expect to use it a lot more than the 100 as it is so light.

Kind regards
Stephen
Waldo Nell said:
I have the MP-E 65, Canon 100mm Macro and the Sigma 180mm Macro, and
they all perform superbly.

I have not really compared them with each other, however the 100mm is
by far the most versatile lens. The MP-E 65 is obviously in a class
of its own, however it is absolutely useless for normal closeup
photography since anything bigger than my 35mm sensor will not fit.

The 180 is great for this - however the long focal length makes this
lens only really useful on a tripod.

This is where the 100mm comes in - I can actually hand hold it and
get about 70% keepers at 1/160. This allows me to get some balance
with ambient light.
Click to expand...
 
jpr2 said:
no, no... the monitor is OK (and calibrated too), formally you are
right, no px.
above that levels - what I meant was it would be much nicer to have all
these highlights on a thorax and abdomen resolved for details and
different
shades - but this is a really minor CC;
Click to expand...
Ah ok that makes sense. Yes I could have burnt it a bit but I was a bit lazy...
jpr2 said:
and, as I said before, I prefer fast primes plus ETs or 500D for a
AF-limited
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate a bit on how you use these lenses and whether resolution, contrast and sharpness wise they are in the same league as a dedicated macro lens? What are the benefits apart from faster AF?

I own the 135 F2.0L, 85mm F1.2L II and several others, however no extension tubes (just TC's) and no 500D filter. I am interested in how you use these equipment?

--
Waldo Nell
 
Yes this will be used on the MPE65. In one of our mosquito cages we may have 1,000 individual mossies and so the density makes it (theoretically) easier to capture one in flight. However, they do move very fast like you state and so I expect to have many, many, many, many misses! To increase your chances it would be best to collect them and contain them in a cage; there is no way I would attempt this in the field situation as it woud be just too difficult. There are various methods for collecting mosquitoes, mostly involve the use of dry ice (solid carbon dioxide) as an attractant and commerical units are available.

Kind regards
Stephen
jpr2 said:
Stephen,

very neat idea, at least when described. However, it seems a lot of
experience in handling gnats is obviously necessary. Yesterday I did
try to use such a makeshift "focusing aid" from a piece of wire, but it
was very wobbly, and not helping much. Are we talking about mpe62
in a context of mossies in flight here?

There is small stretch of a stagnant water not far away, where all kind
of rather small gnats frolic in mid air for hours in a shadowy spot.
But very
few of them (if any) just hover - rather they do dart around quite
quickly. And my wire was certainly not much to their liking (or maybe
it was just myself???),

any advice or other tips as to when during a day it might be best time
to attempt this kind of poaching?

best,
jpr2

--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
Click to expand...
 
My turn to steer this bus off course :D

Why are we getting into a discussion of what lenses are better than others for macro and closeup work and using auto focus as criteria? From about 1/4 life size and higher magnification you had best be manually focusing that lens -the camera is not going to put the area of sharp focus where you really need it. It's just going to select an average spot in the scene. IMHO the reason why there are so many "My lens front / back focuses" posts on this forum is because people are shooting test targets at minimum magnification in poor light and instead of blaming the lens they should blame either their technique or the camera body. Odds are the lens is just fine...

As for the 100mm: I think it's some really good glass, and I've taken a lot of really good photos with it. But it doesn't come close to the EF-S 60mm in terms of color and contrast, or the MPE-65 which has the best color, contrast, and sharpness of any macro lens I've used (the only one I don't have experience with is the 180L). Between the 60 and the 100mm I'd never get into an argument over which one focuses faster -if the auto focus is slow then it's my fault cause I'm the one turning the focusing ring ;)

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
John,

all what you say about focusing in macro/close ups is... perfectly true,
and I agree - this is also my technique, and about everyone else I know
doing this. And as we at at it - the same might be said about an use
of IS in macros = I'd say useless really, if not for the fact that it helps
one to stabilize (and focus manually - usually by swaying back and forth)
their images in VF or LV).

a
However, there is on area "of exception" - action shots, as all the above is
true only for stationary and semi-stationary targets in macro. Unless one
is exceptionally good at their "predictive manual focusing", but I find it
just too hard to do, even in area as relatively easy as: "wind swept floral
macros" :).

Just the other day, when I was testing HSS, the opportunity presented
itself to try some action shooting, namely IIFs of a prospecting bee. Which

was flying along a rim of a yellow flower, hither and tither - first from right to
left, and then rather rapidly back, and without warning too. And all along
I was able to follow it with my set, and AI servo too. Then suddenly it
changed tactics,

and in a mid rim, it turned unexpectedly, flown towards me, and...
I lost it from my focus. And yet, microseconds latter (about in a middle of
a flower, say, some 4cm latter) I regained the focus, all by AI servo. No
matter how quickly you might be on your foot withs swaying, this is just
too quick, at least in my case.

If you have some miraculous MF'ing technique to replace the AI servo for
this kind of shooting I'd be very pleased to follow your advice :)), but till
then I'll stick with being stubborn, and sayin' that EF 100/2.8 macro is just
too sluggish for this. Even the 200/2.8L + 500D + 68mm of kenko's felt
like molasses, capable but... only just. And maybe a slightly, just teeny
weeny on a slow side too. This is by far my quickest focusing glass, even
the 135/2L, and the converted to EF mount Vario-Sonnar 24-85, which I
also cherish very much for IFFs shots, in a setups like this, are slower. I'd
love to try the 300/2.8L - supposedly quickest focusing lens in canon's
lineup, but doubt it it would be hand holdable for a longer stretches - too
much bulk and heft (and rather too heavy for one's wallet, for just
experimenting with).

How is your doing so far 70-200/4L IS in a department of rapid IIFs?
I know that 500D is changing it's performance at MFD and 200mm from
very bad, to... almost good (which might be some consolation for Stephen,
and his misfortunes with the 500D),

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
Perhaps we need a debate on the autofocusing speed of the MPE65; my copy is especially slow! ;-)

I have often stated that the autofocusing speed of the 180L is painfully slow, but this is through its entire range, however it does snap to focus quite quickly if you are not too far off. The real problem is that as everything is so small including the DOF, macro lenses just keep locking onto things other than what you want. Perhaps digitals need to bring back eye focusing systems (where the camera focuses on what the eye is looking at) like the Minolta (and others) had back in the early 90's.

Kind regards
Stephen
 
I've never been able to get AI Servo to work -tried it with the 70-200 F4 L IS + 1.4TC and it would focus on the background but not on the critter. But I was shooting with an F5.6 lens and I don't crop -so I don't think I was getting an AF point over the subject. Maybe on a higher end camera body it would work for me...
jpr2 said:
How is your doing so far 70-200/4L IS in a department of rapid IIFs?
Click to expand...
Great -as long as I manually focus the lens like I did for this shot (1.4TC added):



I set the focus ring to MFD and when the critter hovered I'd turn the ring out toward infinity until I got the focus point where I wanted it. Faster than having the focus ring at the infinity side and trying to come back.
jpr2 said:
I know that 500D is changing it's performance at MFD and 200mm from
very bad, to... almost good (which might be some consolation for
Stephen,
and his misfortunes with the 500D),
Click to expand...
The non IS version of the lens is VERY poor at MFD. The IS version isn't too bad though, and I thought the sharpness was acceptable even with a 1.4xTC added. With the 500D it's razor sharp -which really confuses me about Stephen's experience with the closeup filter. Every lens that I've added a 500D to was either just as sharp (macro lenses) or sharper (non macro telephotos).

Most telephotos are not designed to be sharp at the MFD -and it makes sense: It's a telephoto lens and odds are you bought it to capture distant subjects so the lens was designed to be sharp toward infinity. Yet another reason why testing a telephoto lens indoors close to the MFD and claiming that it front or back focuses is pointless -it wasn't designed to perform well at close range because that's not how most people typically use them. We're the only nuts that try to stick a long telephoto in a critters face for a photo ;)

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
bed bug said:
Perhaps we need a debate on the autofocusing speed of the MPE65; my
copy is especially slow! ;-)
Click to expand...
can't be slower than mine - it starts already at a stage of rather frantic
(and mostly unsuccessful) search of... "where is my target" :))
bed bug said:
I have often stated that the autofocusing speed of the 180L is
painfully slow, but this is through its entire range, however it does
snap to focus quite quickly if you are not too far off. The real
problem is that as everything is so small including the DOF, macro
lenses just keep locking onto things other than what you want.
Click to expand...
exactly - and with most DSLRs (most notably 40d, which sensor is huge
in comparison to it's predecessors, say, 30d) it is also very much the
question of how sensitive, and esp. how ACCURATE is AF's reaction
speed? That of 40D is darn fast, but just the sheer size of the central
sensor means it is very easy to get it off target. And then this really slow
and painful march of slow macro lens focusing towards infinity, and back
hurts really bad. With the AI servo it is easy to stop this match, but then
it might be not so easy to make it to go back and resume.
bed bug said:
Perhaps digitals need to bring back eye focusing systems (where the
camera focuses on what the eye is looking at) like the Minolta (and
others) had back in the early 90's.
Click to expand...
indeed, there were also some EOSes capable of this - I wondered often
why they dropped this very nifty idea - patent issues maybe? But certainly
would like to have it back - just perfect in situations like above. Or...
is it? The devil usually dwells in these tiniest details :)

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
jpr2 said:
jpr2 said:
Perhaps digitals need to bring back eye focusing systems (where the
camera focuses on what the eye is looking at) like the Minolta (and
others) had back in the early 90's.
Click to expand...
indeed, there were also some EOSes capable of this - I wondered often
why they dropped this very nifty idea - patent issues maybe? But
certainly
would like to have it back - just perfect in situations like above.
Or...
is it? The devil usually dwells in these tiniest details :)
Click to expand...
I was thinking about eye focusing and I don't know it it would work all that well. I have a tendency to look all over the scene to make sure I have the framing right and that there isn't anything in the background or foreground that's going to ruin the shot -eye focus would be going crazy as my eye darted around...

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
...I use auto focus 90% of the time on my 100 and 180mm macros. It just works better for me. But I must honestly say - I never got frustrated before due to slow AF speed. I guess it is because the lens can AF faster than I can (accurately) MF.

I have never used AI Servo on my macro lens, though. So I cannot comment on that.

Sometimes my position is just too awkward to manual focus. Take for instance the one shot I had recently where I was bent over backwards pointing the lens almost straight up. No real room for forward/backwards movement since my back was already stretched to its limit! But the AF system made it much easier.

I guess that is as personal a preference as is focal length or any other aspect of your "style" when shooting macro.
--
Waldo Nell
 
Waldo Nell said:
...I use auto focus 90% of the time on my 100 and 180mm macros. It
just works better for me. But I must honestly say - I never got
frustrated before due to slow AF speed. I guess it is because the
lens can AF faster than I can (accurately) MF.
Click to expand...
Might depend on the camera body you use as well. I've got a friend who has used several of the "D" series DSLRs and he use to swear by AF when shooting macro. I've never been able to use it, and with the MPE-65 it's not even an option.

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
Lynn55 said:
John,

What is the approximate magnification factor when you use the
70-200mm f/4 IS with the 500D?
Click to expand...
Lynn,

I want to say it's about .4x @ 200mm. The focus is locked at 18" from the front of the lens -turning the focus ring will only change the focus point by about .5". The cool thing is that once you have the lens focused (by physically moving) you can change the magnification just by turning the zoom ring and the focus point doesn't shift. Great for shooting skittish critters that might let you get close, but won't tolerate a lot of movement.

John

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top