MadaPrata wrote:
Hi!
I came across your detailed review of the Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM Macro lens when I was trying to understand if it's suitable for dental photography and thought maybe you could give me some advice on this. I am an Orthodontics Post Graduate student so I know that, in my field, photography usually does not require the same level of detail as other areas of dentistry since most pictures are oclusal (full arch), lateral and frontal views and extraoral.
Even after reading your thorough review (thank you!) I'm still not sure if this lens would be adequate for my needs along with my EOS M50 Mark II. I'm afraid of any sort of distortion since dental records are such a vital part of my work but I'm also unsure if the 100mm + adapter + ring light is too heavy as well (as someone previously mentioned on this thread).
The EF 100mm with Ringlight (aka Macrolite) is a large setup that is likely to produce flat looking images but you won't get behind the teeth so frontal photography is likely to be the best way to use this lens. The Ringlight that fits on the end of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens is a little tricky to use in that it has two illuminator bulbs that are not related to the flash tube itself and they only come on briefly before the flash tube detonates. You also need to buy an MA-67 Ringlight adapter ring which screws onto the front of the 100mm lens and allows the Ringlight to mount to it. Because the minimum focus distance is fairly long, it's not possible for me to use this myself on my own teeth. But dentists do use this lens and setup. Both the Macrolite Ring Flash and the EF-M 28mm Macro Ringlight have half-moon crescent shaped twin illuminators. The MacroLite uses a krypton flash tube and the EF-M lens uses a low-powered LED illumination.
.
The original EOS M camera with the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens and Ringlight.
EOS R6 + EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens + Canon remote trigger.
The Ring Flash when on the EF 100mm Macro lens + EOS M camera.
The tiny EF-M 28mm Macro lens on the EOS M camera - note the reflection which depicts the two half-moon LED illuminators.
.
The distortion from the much wider EF-M 28mm lens is not that bad because it's still about a 45mm (equiv) field of view on an APS-C sensor which all the EOS M cameras use. There is always going to be some type of distortion when looking at any subject up close so I don't have any objections in relation to the EF-M 28mm lens. I don't have a side by side comparison for size but the difference in scale and weight between these two Macro lenses is considerable.
In sum my biggest questions are:
1. Is the Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM Macro lens an adequate choice for someone in orthodontics ?
I'm not aware of any camera made specifically for this purpose. I'm sure there are specialist cameras like the digital ones my own dentist uses on a mechanical arm which uploads directly to the computer to allow immediate viewing on a display screen... but not all dentists and dental surgeries will have access to these. Previously the EF 100mm f/2,8L Macro lens was the one most Dentists were using but they have a minimum focus distance that is rather long/wide. The EF-M 28mm Macro lens is a wide-angle Macro lens so you need to get closer to the subject than the 100mm lens allows. My own dentist told me his wife bought him the EF-M 28mm Macro lens for his M50 camera to use. But this was his personal camera so I have no idea if he used it with patients. I think this lens is uniquely useful for dental photography and closeups of teeth. I can't think of a better lens for this purpose and it's not particularly expensive either. I can fit the lens into my mouth if I need to. Both Macro and Super Macro settings can be used. Super Macro requires that you be very close to the tooth surface.
2. Is the LED light sufficient or can/should I add a ring light?
The Ring Light is usually sufficient, especially if there's another light source and you're in a lit room... although I have used the Ringlight without any other light and it can be used by itself - although it's supposed for be there for AF assistance and to offer highlights to a subject. A lot of gemdealers use this lens for photographing mineral and gemstone specimens. I will sometimes add a small LED flashlight that is slim or has an L-shape (see the Manker E04 Mini 550 lumen LED flashlight in previous images) if I feel I need to illuminate the area inside my mouth further.
I'm sorry if I didn't grasp everything on the thread above but I'm a novice when it comes to photography and would greatly appreciate your advice on this since you seem to have experience both in dentisty and photography as well.
My experience with dentistry is merely in taking care of my own teeth and using camera lenses to see what's going on with any teeth of concern. I collect fossil teeth from prehistoric animals as well so there's that. I also like using this lens for photographing coins but that's just some of the applications this lens was designed for. Below are images taken with the EF-M 28mm Macro lens of teeth in my collection as well as a recent Dental Experience which unfortunately required extraction.
.
A fossilized tooth from a prehistoric Woolly Rhinoceros.
The tooth of a Velociraptor (Dinosaur).
This is the foreign object embedded into a piece of "100% Breast Chicken" that cracked one of my teeth, leading to extraction recently (see below).It was likely a fragment of chicken bone that had the consistency of actual stone.
Here's how well it was hidden in the chicken. It is best identified as "petrified bone with the consistency of stone". Not sure how that got in there. The food company, which is a famous one, voluntarily paid for the dental repair - but I recently lost the tooth.
Another object that showed up in an UBER delivered meal recently. A stainless steel screw that was in my fries the other day. You can see there's a defect in the head which probably caused it to come loose when the fires basket was slammed on the counter repeatedly.
If I had bitten into this I'd be dealing with more dental problems than before. It's food inclusions like this one that have been the sole cause of damage to any of my teeth. On this occasion there was no harm done. The yellow matter is Chicken Salt.
A scan of my teeth in which I identified a problem. The red arrows point to an area where a repair was located that ran below the gumline. There was not pain when this image was captured. This tooth was later removed about 4 months or so afterwards... the defect in the image showed where decay was setting in below the composite material that was used for repair.
After the tooth was removed, the area was so traumatized from the extraction that ulceration had set in and this ended up exposing the actual bone from my upper jawbone (ie skull). It took a month and a half to heal over. This was on the inside of my mouth, not the outside.
The extracted tooth. The composite filling is on the right side. A large cavity had formed below the filling, I'm really lucky this was right up the back of my mouth.
I'm not sure anyone here would know just how much pain was involved with this tooth before it was extracted.
Removing the composite filling, there's now a clear view down into the root structure and related decay of the affected tooth. The previous repair on this tooth cracked when I bit into that piece of bone (see pics above) and then decay set in, way below the gumline, between teeth... making it impossible to detect. I'm surprised the tooth didn't break during extraction.
.
The downside of placing a lens inside the mouth is that it can fog up with the warm breath coming in contact with it. Using a dental mirror (which you can see was applied when examining the gum damage and exposed bone above) was likewise tricky because it will fog up as well. But these images should give you some idea of what sort of images are possible with this lens.
.
For me personally, I can upload images to my iPhone or iPad and show my dentist so he can see exactly what is concerning me. I've taken very good care of my teeth since childhood so it seems terribly sad when I crack a tooth on a foreign object. I have twice damaged teeth (rear molars) on pieces of stone (possibly granite) that was on the outside of macadamia nuts. My guess is that it was caused by a grinding wheel used to remove the shells or that it was used to crush the salt and ended up mixed with the salt on the nuts.
.
If I were running a business in Dentistry or Orthodontics there's quite a few different options available, from the lenses to industry purposed cameras that are part of the clinic equipment (like the ones on a mechanical arm that my own dentist uses).
