135 2.0 for macro photography?

Hi, I have a 135 2.0L which is a fabulous lens. But I don't use it as often as I thought I would.... I use my 70-200 F4 IS more often.

I'd like to do some macro photography, and am considering getting the 100mm 2.8 macro (L or non-L, not sure which), but it occurred to me that I could use extension tubes with the 135L instead.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

For most of my close-up work I use the 100/2.8L on a 5DII. However, for some insects this does not give enough working distance, and I have found that the 135/2L on an EF25 tube is a useful alternative. Because the addition of the tube focuses the lens by linear movement of the entire lens, you are still at 135mm with the focus set to infinity, although it drops a bit as you change to the minimum focus setting to increase the magnification, and this preserves working distance better than a purely internal-focus setup as with the 100/2.8L, so the difference in working distance is rather more in practice than the comparatively small difference in focal length would suggest. For quite a lot of butterflies and dragonflies, framing with this combination is reasonably tight, and if you want it tighter then using a 7D body rather than a 5DII achieves this whilst still keeping the pixel count high.

So I would say that for certain applications the 135/2+EF25 combination is useful, but it is far too clumsy and inflexible for general-purpose close-up/macro use.

Incidentally, the Macrolite Adapter 72C makes it possible to use the MR-14EX or MT-24EX on the 135/2L, and at least with that close-up setup I have not seen any vignetting.

rladd said:

I'd like to do some macro photography, and am considering getting the 100mm 2.8 macro (L or non-L, not sure which), but it occurred to me that I could use extension tubes with the 135L instead.

Click to expand...

Looking at a lens table the min focus distance for the 135/2 is 3 ft which yields a magnification of 0,19X. by comparison the 100/2.8 macro has a mfd of 1 ft and a corresponding magnification factor of 1.0X. I put on a 1.4x TC and a couple of extension tubes (32mm) on the 135 and while the mfd ws still about 2 ft, the amount of ruler that fit in the frame was about 3" or roughly 1/2 of what the 100/2.8 will do natively. I would guess that magnification to be considerably less than 0.5. Of course one can add extension tubes to the 100/2.8 as well to get even closer.

So for macros of flowers the 135 will work with a 1.4x TC, but if you want to see the pistel of the flower in some detail you had better get a real macro lens.
Mike K

The Sigma 150 f2.8 is a great lens, OS or non-OS, I have the non_OS lens and like it. The lens is a true macro. Below is the review from Photozone:

"Verdict

The Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 EX HSM DG APO macro OS is certainly among the very best macro lenses that we've tested here at photozone. It delivered great results in our full format test already and it is not worse in the APS-C format despite the comparatively higher pixel density of our base DSLR. The lens is capable of delivering very good results at max. aperture and the center quality does even reach excellent quality between f/4 and f/8. Both distortions as well as lateral CAs are insignificantly low. The vignetting is rarely an issue at f/2.8 and gone by f/4 in the APS-C scope. It is a bit unfortunate that the quality of the bokeh is "only" good but not top notch. A real surprise is the amount of bokeh fringing - there's basically none - an extremely rare characteristic so the Sigma is not only an apochromatic lens but a so-called super-apochromat.

The mechanical implementation of the Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 EX HSM DG APO macro OS is basically perfect except for the missing weather sealing. The ultrasonic AF drive is very fast in most scenes and AF operations are virtually silent. Sigma's image stabilizer ("Optical Stabilizer") is very efficient at normal focus distances but don't expect wonders in macro scenes. This characteristic is not uncommon though - the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8 ED shares this limitation for instance. Sigma has increased the pricing quite a bit compared to the predecessor but we think it's worth it!

--
"Photography is, indeed, an inclusive language."
Ansel Adams

As focal length increases above 50mm, lenses respond less aggressively to extension tubes. By the time you reach 135mm, what's needed is an achromat at the front, not a tube. I don't remember the formula off the top, but it is possible to calculate the magnification you can achieve by using a 500D or 250D achromatic closeup lens on a 135mm lens.

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

Thank a lot for your replies. I need to experiment more. I've got a 12mm ext tube which may not do much on the 135 but I'll try it on the 85mm to see what that does.

What I want to do is not so much macro per se, but close up pictures with pleasantly blurred backgrounds. I like the compressed perspective of telephoto lenses and tried out using a 300mm F4 to take pictures of flowers some of which looked great (will post an example if anyone is interested). But not sure I want to invest in a relatively heavy lens (300mm F4) that I'll probably only use infrequently.

I have used a 135L for close-ups before I sold it (mildly regretted, but didn't used it much) with a 20mm Kenko extension tube, with results like these:





Regarding magnification, it won't allow the same amount as a dedicated macro lens and it won't render the very fine details a 100L or a similar macro lens would at the closest distances, but it has three advantages IMO:

• working distance, as explained before in another post;
• the rendering/colour reproduction that is so typical with 135L (and quite differente from most Canon lenses);
• the possibility to use an f/2 aperture for very selective focusing with excellent bokeh.

I would not recommend the 135L as a 'general purpose' macro lens, but it can be used with very good results for close-ups of flowers, large insects, and mushrooms with very unique results. I can't reproduce the exact same images with my 100L, which has a more clinical rendering, but it's a much more useful lens for pure macro and close-up work.

--
Pedro Claro
Marinha Grande - Portugal

Ah, thank you! Just the kind of info I was looking for. Beautiful photo too.
bob

See how well a closeup filer-style lens works.

Should be really good.

BAK

OK thanks. I was wondering about that, especially since tubes don't work as well with longer lenses. I've never used a close up lens before, but I suppose a good one won't degrade image quality much even though it is more glass.

Thanks... very helpful info... I appreciate it

Thank you.

Glad you found the info you've been looking for in my words and photos.

--
Pedro Claro
Marinha Grande - Portugal

Very attractive work, Pedro. These are definitely more artistic than I usually see from macro shots that cover the same FOV.

I guess I'll have to pull my 135mm off the shelf for another try (which is where it has been for more than a year since I got the 100mm f2.8L IS Macro).

Regards, Bill

Here are charts showing magnification using diopters (achromats) and extension tubes...

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

Doable but not fun and difficult as oppose to a dedicated macro lens.
135 with 68mm ext tube

http://www.pbase.com/danator/image/50559884

135 with reverse 50mm

http://www.pbase.com/danator/image/85936016

--
http://www.danator.com

rladd said:

Hi, I have a 135 2.0L which is a fabulous lens. But I don't use it as often as I thought I would.... I use my 70-200 F4 IS more often

Click to expand...

I know EXACTLY what you mean. I own both 100mm f/2 and 70-200 F4 IS. I found myself using my 70-200 F4 IS much more.

Instead of using 135mm f/2, a 70-200 F4 IS + Extention Tube for MACRO does a better job. 200mm buys far more working distance than 135mm and bigger magnification. 70-200 F4 is also sharper.

Shooting Macro often require that you step down between F8-F22, at such a small aperture, Image Stabilization worth its weight in gold.

rladd said:

Hi, I have a 135 2.0L which is a fabulous lens. But I don't use it as often as I thought I would.... I use my 70-200 F4 IS more often.

I'd like to do some macro photography, and am considering getting the 100mm 2.8 macro (L or non-L, not sure which), but it occurred to me that I could use extension tubes with the 135L instead.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

Click to expand...

It is a fab lens and is probably fine for flowers and subjects like that when used with extension tubes. But, and this might not be an issue for you in any case, at close distances, since it wasn't really designed for close up use, the lens is likely to suffer from some curvature of field and tubes will only emphasise this characteristic. So it's probably not a combination you would want to use for photographing flat subjects, not if you want the edges sharp anyway.

Thank you, Bill. I'm considering the possibility of buying another 135L one day - even if not used much, everytime it is needed, it delivers!

By the way, these photos were taken with a 5D in natural light (diffused, indoor), ISO 800 and wide open or near wide open (f/2.2 or f/2.5).

--
Pedro Claro
Marinha Grande - Portugal

I use inches of stacked af tubes with very pleasant results, and cheap.
Also Sigma 1.4X. The 135L is Zeiss like.

Thanks again everyone... very much appreciated + I've learned a lot.

I'm thinking now I'll hang on to my 135 2.0... which means I'm mostly likely not going to plunk down another 1K for the macro. The 135 is such a good lens and since I don't plan to be a hard core macro person I probably would be better off using the 135 (or 70 200 F4) with tubes, along with a 1.4 extender which no doubt will help.

The only thing holding me back from getting a close up lens is that it would only fit one filter size.