canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => Lenses => Topic started by: AudioGlenn on August 18, 2012, 06:10:29 PM

Title: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on August 18, 2012, 06:10:29 PM
I am trying to decide on which lens to get next.  I want to play with Macro but I like the versatility of the 70-200.

My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.?  Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out.

I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.  From what I've read, images are very sharp through this lens.  They both have IS, they are both f/2.8 apertures.  I can use the 70-200 for portraits...i guess I can use the 100mm for portrait work as well.  But it seems the macro lens is a specialty lens.  Eventually, I'd like to own both but would the 70-200mm get me by on macro work at all?  (I hope this is not a stupid question!)

Yes, I've heard about the 180mm f/3.5L and I would be open to considering this lens.  I have a 24-105 so I'm also concerned about adding some variety to the focal lengths I already own.  I've got the wide end covered but am seriously lacking on the telephoto side.  It seems the 100mm macro would only be used for macro.

Any insight from experienced users would be great.  BTW, I'm shooting on a 60D.  I will eventually purchase a 5D mkiii and keep the 60D as a 2nd body.

Happy shooting to you all =).  I look forward to reading your replies.

Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on August 18, 2012, 06:30:36 PM
My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.?  Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out..

No, the 70-200 II delivers a max magnification of 0.21x, while the 100mm macro delivers 1.0x.  In fact, your 24-105 delivers a higher native max mag (0.23x) than the 70-200 II. Note that 0.2x - 0.25x is decent for flowers, etc., but often not enough for insects.

Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm. 

I've compared the 100L with the 70-200 II plus the 500D close-up lens, which delivers a 0.6x mag.  The IQ overall was very similar in real-world shots.  But, with the 500D you're limited to a specific 50cm (20") working distance, no more, no less - rather inconvenient. Without the 500D, your 24-105 is a better close up lens than the 70-200 II. 

Basically, if you want a versatile telezoom with top IQ, the 70-200 II is a great lens.  If you need true 1:1 macro or close to it, get a macro lens.  Regarding the 100mm vs. the 180mm L lenses, the latter gives you an extra 4.5" of working distance, useful for shy critters.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: jrh on August 18, 2012, 07:16:55 PM
Good question AudioGlenn, I am in a smilar situation.  Have you looked at extension tubes with the 24-105 & 70-200?  Can any please advise?
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on August 18, 2012, 07:33:26 PM
Good question AudioGlenn, I am in a smilar situation.  Have you looked at extension tubes with the 24-105 & 70-200?  Can any please advise?

Extension tube with the 24-105, close-up lens with the 70-200.  Tubes add mag as a ratio of the focal length, so they work best with wide lenses (but the wider, the shorter the working distance - sometimes almost touching the front element.

Both tubes and close-up lenses are budget options, with drawbacks. For occasional macro, that's fine if you can work around the limitations. On trips where space is limited, a 500D filter is easier to pack than another lens. But for frequent macro use, get a true macro lens.

If you're only shooting APS-C, the EF-S 60mm macro is a great option. Else, the 100L is wonderful (but the non-L isn't bad, either - similar IQ to the L, but no IS, or weather sealing).
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on August 18, 2012, 10:25:01 PM
My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.?  Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out..

No, the 70-200 II delivers a max magnification of 0.21x, while the 100mm macro delivers 1.0x.  In fact, your 24-105 delivers a higher native max mag (0.23x) than the 70-200 II. Note that 0.2x - 0.25x is decent for flowers, etc., but often not enough for insects.

Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm. 

I've compared the 100L with the 70-200 II plus the 500D close-up lens, which delivers a 0.6x mag.  The IQ overall was very similar in real-world shots.  But, with the 500D you're limited to a specific 50cm (20") working distance, no more, no less - rather inconvenient. Without the 500D, your 24-105 is a better close up lens than the 70-200 II. 

Basically, if you want a versatile telezoom with top IQ, the 70-200 II is a great lens.  If you need true 1:1 macro or close to it, get a macro lens.  Regarding the 100mm vs. the 180mm L lenses, the latter gives you an extra 4.5" of working distance, useful for shy critters.

Thank you so much for your reply.  I got exactly the answer I needed.  I have to look at "magnification factors".  1.0x is what makes the 100mm Macro L a macro lens, NOT necessarily the focal length. 

As far as extension tubes, I haven't looked at those as an option.  from my understanding, they stop down the lens just by having them on and I would rather just get the right lens for the job first.  I understand these might be helpful with the long telephoto lenses but for my uses, a $300-500 adapter wouldn't be as efficient as just spending on the lens I need.  Now, if I had an $6000+ lens that I wanted to use at slightly longer focal length...maybe.  Can anyone chime in on this one?  I am most definitely a noob at all of this.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on August 18, 2012, 11:19:03 PM
Sounds like you're confusing extenders (aka teleconverters) with extension tubes. 

Extenders multiply focal length, and contain lens elements (meaning you lose some IQ).  Canon makes 1.4x and 2x, and they cost you 1 or 2 stops of light, respectively.  Those do multiply the max mag as well, so for example, the 70-200/2.8 with a 2x becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 with a max mag of 0.42x. 

Extension tubes contain no optics, just air. They move the lens further from the sensor, which 1) shortens the MFD, 2) shortens the max FD, i.e. you can't focus to infinity, and 3) costs you a bit of light (but not much).  Extension tubes are used with wide and normal lenses, and by shortening the MFD they allow closer focus and higher mag.  They're a lot cheaper than an extender, and unlike extenders where 3rd party brands are optically inferior to the Canon, 3rd party extenders are no different (to paraphrase Bryan at TDP, Canon air is no better than Kenko air...but you pay more for the Canon air!).
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on August 18, 2012, 11:34:46 PM
There are at least 6 ways to go.
1.  Macro lens, all of them are excellent, you do not have to buy Canon.
2.  Teleconverter (Kenko).  The Canon TC only works with specific lenses, and not the 24-105mm , but the Kenko will fit almost all lenses.  Its less expensive, and excellent.  Use one with the 70-200mm II.
3.  Extension tubes - There are some very cheap ones (Its only air), get a reporting one with electrical contacts that pass thru..
4. Canon 500D or similar close up adapter.  You should get a good one, not a $15 special.
5.  Reverse Lens ring.  Great for a old 50mm Canon FL or FD Manual focus lens, same for older Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, and other fully manual lenses.  You buy a low cost adapter (~$10) to fit the filter threads on the front of the lens so it is mounted backwards on the camera.  You have to be pretty close, and focus by moving the camera forward or away from the subject.
6.  Bellows, essentially a extension tube, but easy to adjust magnification.  Cheap ones are found on ebay.
 
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: Zusje on August 19, 2012, 01:21:51 AM
I'm not as experienced or knowledgable about photography as the previous posters, however I own both these lenses. I'd only consider using the 70-200 f2.8Lis ii for macro if I didn't happen to have my 100 f2.8L is with me and just had to photograph that bug/butterfly/flower for example. However the 100 f2.8L is is surprisingly versatile, especially good for portraits, it certainly isn't restricted to macro use only, in fact I'd say I use mine for macro only 50% of the time.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: squarebox on August 19, 2012, 01:45:12 AM
Thanx Neuro, I have mulling over Extension tubes, Teleconverters and the 500D filter lately.  You summed up the options pretty well.

Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: keithfullermusic on August 19, 2012, 01:52:50 AM
I didn't read all the responses, but from the title I will say this:  a non-macro lens will not come close to a true macro lens in terms of macro photography.

Also, the 100mm non L gives about as sharp of an image as you are going to get.  The L might be sharper, but you're really paying the extra $ for the IS and weather sealing (but mostly that red ring). 

If you want a versatile lens and money isn't an issue go for the 70-200.  If you want a macro lens get the 100mm non-L.  It is one of the sharpest lenses I have seen.  Also, IS for macros isn't that useful, especially if you have a nice camera.  The problem with macros is that the wind is blowing things or the damn things (bugs) are moving.  If money isn't an issue and you really want a macro then by all means get the L.  However, for the same price you can get a sweet flash and the non-L, and that will be a much better value.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: keithfullermusic on August 19, 2012, 01:54:05 AM
I'm not as experienced or knowledgable about photography as the previous posters, however I own both these lenses. I'd only consider using the 70-200 f2.8Lis ii for macro if I didn't happen to have my 100 f2.8L is with me and just had to photograph that bug/butterfly/flower for example. However the 100 f2.8L is is surprisingly versatile, especially good for portraits, it certainly isn't restricted to macro use only, in fact I'd say I use mine for macro only 50% of the time.

+1

I try and use my 100 (non-L) any time I can because it is so sharp and clean.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: Marsu42 on August 19, 2012, 02:47:13 AM
I am trying to decide on which lens to get next.  I want to play with Macro but I like the versatility of the 70-200.

+1 for getting *two* lenses - the 70-200L and the inexpensive (used?) *non-L* macro with is practically identical to the L at sane apertures like f5.6-f11 except for a little less nice bokeh. The IS of the 100L doesn't help you at very close distances, it only gives you a soothing IS sound a adds a component that could break. Another difference is that the L is sharper wide open and thus works better with the Kenko 1.4x tc.

I've got the 70-300L and thus upgraded to the L macro, but if you really want a 70-200L despite the weight (and price) the non-L macro is a great budget addition.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: Menace on August 19, 2012, 04:54:07 AM
I'd say get the 70-200 now and consider a used 100 2.8 non L Macro in the near future unless you need the built quality and IS on the L lens. In that case, still get the the 70-200 now and save a bit longer and get the L.

Cheers
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: Marsu42 on August 19, 2012, 05:25:31 AM
unless you need the built quality and IS on the L lens

... concerning the build quality: the 100L is just a plastic lens, too - which is good because otherwise Canon would take $1000 more for it. But it won't take impacts well, and the hybrid IS is more delicate which maybe is the reason Canon uses it in few lenses. The main physical advantage of the L is dust and moisture sealing, which is important when you shoot outdoors and near the ground a lot.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on August 19, 2012, 06:57:02 AM
... the hybrid IS is more delicate which maybe is the reason Canon uses it in few lenses

What evidence is there that Hybrid IS is 'more delicate'?  Care to share some data (maybe something from lensrentals.com, etc.)?

The reason Hybrid IS is used in few lenses is that the 'hybrid' part refers to compensating for translational movement, in addition to angular movement for which normal IS compensates.  Translational movement is significant only with very close subjects, so the benefit is minimal-to-none on lenses with typical MFDs.  As for not using it in many lenses, in terms of units produced, I'd bet Canon uses Hybrid IS in more units than the total number of L lenses made - several of the PowerShot cameras feature Hybrid IS, because of the short MFDs on those lenses for 'macro' capability (and incidentally, use in a tiny camera intended for purse/pocket seems to contradict the 'delicate' idea).
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: birtembuk on August 19, 2012, 10:28:40 AM
Got both and they are equally awesome for their respective use. Now, for your question, I just tried - as we speak - to put my 65mm of extension tubes on my 70-200II just to see what. No shot taken. So, the min focusing distance becomes about 2' and the IS looks like working just fine. With that stacking of tubes, your magnification at 200mm should become 0.21 + 65/200 = 0.535

This means that objects taken with this stack will appear about half their size in the picture. This is not really macro, but it could be a good start. Extension tubes are quite cheap stuff. No need Canon for that, others can do as good. After all, these are just full of air. So, if your are not yet fully dipped into macro (the day you start, you can't get away anymore), I would consider the 70-200II and add a few tubes to it. You have the best walkabout lens money can buy and 0.535x mag for mid-macro.

Just a word more. The 100L lens is just an tremendous macro lens. I can tell you that the IS still works, though not in full, at close distance. I also stack tubes on it for like 1.5 - 1.6x and the results always blow my socks off. When you are out there shooting through wet foliage of bushes, you're happy to count on weather sealing.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: charlesa on August 19, 2012, 11:06:58 AM
Get the zoom first and the macro lens later.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on August 19, 2012, 01:02:28 PM
Sounds like you're confusing extenders (aka teleconverters) with extension tubes. 

Extenders multiply focal length, and contain lens elements (meaning you lose some IQ).  Canon makes 1.4x and 2x, and they cost you 1 or 2 stops of light, respectively.  Those do multiply the max mag as well, so for example, the 70-200/2.8 with a 2x becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 with a max mag of 0.42x. 

Extension tubes contain no optics, just air. They move the lens further from the sensor, which 1) shortens the MFD, 2) shortens the max FD, i.e. you can't focus to infinity, and 3) costs you a bit of light (but not much).  Extension tubes are used with wide and normal lenses, and by shortening the MFD they allow closer focus and higher mag.  They're a lot cheaper than an extender, and unlike extenders where 3rd party brands are optically inferior to the Canon, 3rd party extenders are no different (to paraphrase Bryan at TDP, Canon air is no better than Kenko air...but you pay more for the Canon air!).

Thank you.  I didn't realize there was such a thing.  I'll look into it.

It sounds like the 70-200 first, then the 100mm Macro AND some extension tubes after that....  I'll have to record another album before I can buy all this gear!!! 
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: heptagon on August 19, 2012, 01:14:15 PM
Well, you could also go with the Tamron 90mm macro. It's much cheaper and does take 1:1 images at f/4 pretty well if you need that. Otherwise often you don't really need an 1:1 macro and the 70-200 with or without extension tubes will do the job.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: Andy_Hodapp on August 19, 2012, 04:11:36 PM
Just an idea, I have a Sigma 105mm EX DG which gives amazing results, DxOMark.com gives it a rating higher then the 100mm 2.8L, I got mine for $300 used on Ebay in mint condition.  You might want to get that and then go for a used 70-200mm F/4L, two great lenses for the price of one.  I've used a 70-200mm F/4L for a couple weeks, some say it is even sharper then the 2.8.  Makes you think.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: skitron on August 21, 2012, 08:43:34 PM
Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm.

Huh?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor)

See Measurements>resolution>field maps

The 100L has more resolution in any part of the frame at any aperture than the 70-200 II at any length, no?
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: SiliconVoid on August 21, 2012, 09:29:19 PM
I am sure it as already been answered, or possibly you have done some research in the time you have posted - but the 70-200 is not a macro lens. At its closest focus distance, at maximum focal length, it will not magnify the subject any more than 1:4 if I am not mistaken..

If you are really talking about macro photography the choice is obvious, the 100m macro, if however you are simply wanting close shots of things (dragon flys, reptiles, birds, etc) and are wanting to fill the frame with them as close as you can typically get to them then the 70-200mm will give you a lens with greater diversity, not to mention greater focal length options.

As was mentioned above if you are willing to sacrifice the focus range (no infinity focus) you can stack extension tubes to bring the minimum focus distance of the 70-200 to around 10inches - but a maximum focal distance of less than ~8feet. With the extension tubes you would be hard pressed to see any optical quality differences, it is a very sharp lens at native focus ranges, shorten that range so you are physically closer to the subject and you have a very useful 'close focus' zoom. You will also lose light stacking the extension tubes, but you typically stop down macro anyway, it will darken the viewfinder a little though. Curvature of the focal plane with the 70-200mm (soft corners) will not be all that relevant in the field, and you will probably not notice at all on a cropped sensor like the 60D. If your shooting flat objects like stamps or coins, and will be scrutinizing the corners of the frame, you may want to get the true macro lens.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on August 22, 2012, 09:41:59 AM
Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm.

Huh?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor)

See Measurements>resolution>field maps

The 100L has more resolution in any part of the frame at any aperture than the 70-200 II at any length, no?

(http://the-word-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/worms.jpg)

See what you did - you went and opened the DxO can of worms...  Try comparing their measurements of the 70-200 II with their measurements of the 70-200/2.8 IS MkI - the MkI performs better in their tests.  In their tests, and no one else's.  Personally, I think they got a bad copy of the 70-200 II.  My 70-200 II is slightly sharper away from the center than the 100L, that's true for the tests on TDP (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=2&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0) (although there really close) and also on photozone.de (compare 70-200 II (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28?start=1) vs. 100L (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1)).
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: skitron on August 23, 2012, 09:12:17 AM
Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm.

Huh?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/346/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/436/(lens2)/408/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436#div1anchor)

See Measurements>resolution>field maps

The 100L has more resolution in any part of the frame at any aperture than the 70-200 II at any length, no?

(http://the-word-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/worms.jpg)

See what you did - you went and opened the DxO can of worms...  Try comparing their measurements of the 70-200 II with their measurements of the 70-200/2.8 IS MkI - the MkI performs better in their tests.  In their tests, and no one else's.  Personally, I think they got a bad copy of the 70-200 II.  My 70-200 II is slightly sharper away from the center than the 100L, that's true for the tests on TDP (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=2&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0) (although there really close) and also on photozone.de (compare 70-200 II (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28?start=1) vs. 100L (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d?start=1)).

The 100L looks sharper in the corners to me on the TDP examples, obviously more vignetting, but slightly sharper. So that tends to make me reject both DxO and photozone testing.  :o  But all of this also tends to make me want to buy a 70-200 II since I'll never spring for a 200 L f2...
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on August 23, 2012, 09:25:17 AM
The 100L looks sharper in the corners to me on the TDP examples, obviously more vignetting, but slightly sharper. So that tends to make me reject both DxO and photozone testing.  :o  But all of this also tends to make me want to buy a 70-200 II since I'll never spring for a 200 L f2...

I do think what we're seeing is within the range of copy variability - if you look on TDP, he tested three copies of the 70-200 II (there's a popup menu so you can compare them).

I think the bottom line is that while there may be differences between the two lenses from a sharpness standpoint, the direction and magnitude of that difference is probably subject to lens copy variation.  Most importantly, both offer excellent IQ that's probably not distinguishable in real world shooting. 

So, IQ shouldn't be used as a distinguishing factor between these two lenses...it really comes down to whether you need to go to 1:1 magnification or not, whether you need the flexibility of a zoom, and what your budget will cover.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: Marsu42 on August 23, 2012, 03:27:56 PM
So, IQ shouldn't be used as a distinguishing factor between these two lenses...it really comes down to whether you need to go to 1:1 magnification or not, whether you need the flexibility of a zoom, and what your budget will cover.

...this might be not an issue to some, but imho it comes down to the weight (plus length = torque on wrist), too: 70-200L 1490g vs 100L 625g (my 70-300L has 1050g and that's really the limit for me if combined with a flash).
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 01, 2012, 12:40:43 PM
Thank you all for the good info.  I bit the bullet and purchased a 70-200 2.8 IS II last night.  I'll save for a macro lens when I absolutely need 1:1 magnification.  The 70-200 will be coming in this week!  I can't wait to play with it.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on October 01, 2012, 12:45:51 PM
Thank you all for the good info.  I bit the bullet and purchased a 70-200 2.8 IS II last night.  I'll save for a macro lens when I absolutely need 1:1 magnification.  The 70-200 will be coming in this week!  I can't wait to play with it.

It's an awesome lens, I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.  :)
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: brianleighty on October 01, 2012, 01:21:40 PM
Thank you all for the good info.  I bit the bullet and purchased a 70-200 2.8 IS II last night.  I'll save for a macro lens when I absolutely need 1:1 magnification.  The 70-200 will be coming in this week!  I can't wait to play with it.
Just thought I'd give a little input on this since I've done some testing lately on this. I rented a set of extension tubes for my most recent wedding. I tried it on the vast majority of my lenses (both owned and rented for the weding). Of the zoom lenses I tested it on, the Canon 70-200 IS L II did very well. I actually ended up using it for some of the macro shots. I still like using the 40 2.8 better but I would highly recommend getting a set of KENKO extension tubes if you find the maximum magnification to be too small. After renting the tubes I went ahead and bought a pair. I'm sure I'll eventually get a true macro lens but I don't have the money for that right now and the extension tubes will give me even more possibility with a true macro lens. Hope this helps. Enjoy the lens. 
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 06, 2012, 02:49:32 PM
All I can say about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is WOW!  I got it in the mail yesterday.  I wasn't expecting it to be that fast.  I feel like I have a whole new AF system in my "old" 60D.  As far as magnification/macro, I haven't received my kenko tubes yet but I just wanted to update this thread with my progress.  OMG, this seriously is the lens of all lenses (at least in my bag).  I absolutely love it.  I really wasn't expecting this much more sharpness either.  If the 24-70 II is supposed to be this sharp, my 24-105 is about about to be replaced as well.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: vkiran on October 07, 2012, 11:40:08 PM
Got both and they are equally awesome for their respective use. Now, for your question, I just tried - as we speak - to put my 65mm of extension tubes on my 70-200II just to see what. No shot taken. So, the min focusing distance becomes about 2' and the IS looks like working just fine. With that stacking of tubes, your magnification at 200mm should become 0.21 + 65/200 = 0.535

This means that objects taken with this stack will appear about half their size in the picture. This is not really macro, but it could be a good start. Extension tubes are quite cheap stuff. No need Canon for that, others can do as good. After all, these are just full of air. So, if your are not yet fully dipped into macro (the day you start, you can't get away anymore), I would consider the 70-200II and add a few tubes to it. You have the best walkabout lens money can buy and 0.535x mag for mid-macro.

Just a word more. The 100L lens is just an tremendous macro lens. I can tell you that the IS still works, though not in full, at close distance. I also stack tubes on it for like 1.5 - 1.6x and the results always blow my socks off. When you are out there shooting through wet foliage of bushes, you're happy to count on weather sealing.

+1 for getting both...
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: willis on October 08, 2012, 09:44:13 AM
Once you're talking about extension tubes so how much closer does 25mm extension take focusing?
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: brianleighty on October 08, 2012, 11:35:53 AM
Once you're talking about extension tubes so how much closer does 25mm extension take focusing?
That depends on your zoom setting. At 70mm, the general rule would be you're increasing your maximum magnification by 25/70 or about .35. I'm not sure what the maximum magnification is natively at 70mm since the .21x is at 200mm but I would guess you're somewhere between .4x and .5x combined with that. The shots I've done, I think I've put all three Kenko Tubes on.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on October 08, 2012, 11:39:19 AM
Once you're talking about extension tubes so how much closer does 25mm extension take focusing?
That depends on your zoom setting. At 70mm, the general rule would be you're increasing your maximum magnification by 25/70 or about .35.

Yep.  For a tele lens, the 500D close-up lens will generally give a higher maximum magnification than extension tubes.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 17, 2012, 09:03:26 PM
Got my Kenko Extension tubes today.  After some mild testing, I like how they work (and feel/weigh) on the 24-105 more so than the 70-200.  It's just too damn heavy!  I'll try it with a tripod too but DAMN!....  I think for now, this combo (24-105+Kenko tubes) will tide me over.  When I do get the 100mm Macro L, I'll want to buy one of the macro flashes with it as well.  Any recommendations?
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: K-amps on October 17, 2012, 09:49:22 PM
All I can say about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is WOW!  I got it in the mail yesterday.  I wasn't expecting it to be that fast.  I feel like I have a whole new AF system in my "old" 60D.  As far as magnification/macro, I haven't received my kenko tubes yet but I just wanted to update this thread with my progress.  OMG, this seriously is the lens of all lenses (at least in my bag).  I absolutely love it.  I really wasn't expecting this much more sharpness either.  If the 24-70 II is supposed to be this sharp, my 24-105 is about about to be replaced as well.

Hey Glenn... are you like me, an audio nut turned photo nut?
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 18, 2012, 12:59:11 AM
All I can say about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is WOW!  I got it in the mail yesterday.  I wasn't expecting it to be that fast.  I feel like I have a whole new AF system in my "old" 60D.  As far as magnification/macro, I haven't received my kenko tubes yet but I just wanted to update this thread with my progress.  OMG, this seriously is the lens of all lenses (at least in my bag).  I absolutely love it.  I really wasn't expecting this much more sharpness either.  If the 24-70 II is supposed to be this sharp, my 24-105 is about about to be replaced as well.

Hey Glenn... are you like me, an audio nut turned photo nut?

Yes!  I'm a mastering engineer =)  I also teach voice and music production privately so I get to work with lots of musicians.  I decided to start helping out my "kids" with their youtube videos so I got into video and DSLRs.  I didn't realize I'd get this deep into it.  It's a useful skill to have in our field AND it's so much fun!!!!  My camera gives me a break from "work".  Since music became my profession 12 years ago, I haven't had a "hobby" to turn to.  Glad to meet someone who I can appreciate both arts with
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 18, 2012, 01:02:29 AM
My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.?  Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out..

No, the 70-200 II delivers a max magnification of 0.21x, while the 100mm macro delivers 1.0x.  In fact, your 24-105 delivers a higher native max mag (0.23x) than the 70-200 II. Note that 0.2x - 0.25x is decent for flowers, etc., but often not enough for insects.

Natively, the 100L is very slightly sharper in the center but definitely softer away from the center, compared to the 70-200 II at 200mm. 

I've compared the 100L with the 70-200 II plus the 500D close-up lens, which delivers a 0.6x mag.  The IQ overall was very similar in real-world shots.  But, with the 500D you're limited to a specific 50cm (20") working distance, no more, no less - rather inconvenient. Without the 500D, your 24-105 is a better close up lens than the 70-200 II. 

Basically, if you want a versatile telezoom with top IQ, the 70-200 II is a great lens.  If you need true 1:1 macro or close to it, get a macro lens.  Regarding the 100mm vs. the 180mm L lenses, the latter gives you an extra 4.5" of working distance, useful for shy critters.

Thank you so much for your reply.  I got exactly the answer I needed.  I have to look at "magnification factors".  1.0x is what makes the 100mm Macro L a macro lens, NOT necessarily the focal length. 

As far as extension tubes, I haven't looked at those as an option.  from my understanding, they stop down the lens just by having them on and I would rather just get the right lens for the job first.  I understand these might be helpful with the long telephoto lenses but for my uses, a $300-500 adapter wouldn't be as efficient as just spending on the lens I need.  Now, if I had an $6000+ lens that I wanted to use at slightly longer focal length...maybe.  Can anyone chime in on this one?  I am most definitely a noob at all of this.

if you use them with the 100 you can go beyond 1:1
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 19, 2012, 02:12:55 AM
Got both and they are equally awesome for their respective use. Now, for your question, I just tried - as we speak - to put my 65mm of extension tubes on my 70-200II just to see what. No shot taken. So, the min focusing distance becomes about 2' and the IS looks like working just fine. With that stacking of tubes, your magnification at 200mm should become 0.21 + 65/200 = 0.535

This means that objects taken with this stack will appear about half their size in the picture. This is not really macro, but it could be a good start. Extension tubes are quite cheap stuff. No need Canon for that, others can do as good. After all, these are just full of air. So, if your are not yet fully dipped into macro (the day you start, you can't get away anymore), I would consider the 70-200II and add a few tubes to it. You have the best walkabout lens money can buy and 0.535x mag for mid-macro.

Just a word more. The 100L lens is just an tremendous macro lens. I can tell you that the IS still works, though not in full, at close distance. I also stack tubes on it for like 1.5 - 1.6x and the results always blow my socks off. When you are out there shooting through wet foliage of bushes, you're happy to count on weather sealing.

So I did some more testing.  I setup my 70-200 on a tripod and a measuring stick to measure the MFD of a subject at 70mm and at 200mm with and without the Kenko Extension Tubes.  Also, by adding the additional magnification factor based on your math, I came up with these figures:

Attachment          MFD (in in. @70mm)   MFD (in in. @200mm)   Total Magnification @70mm   Total Mag. @200mm
                                                                                                  0.21+(Xmm/70mm)    0.21+(Xmm/200mm)                                                                                                               
(none)                   39"                              37"                               0.21                                      0.21
12mm                   12"                              29"                               0.3814                                  0.27                                                                                                   
20mm                   8" (manual)                 26"                               0.4957                                  0.31                                                                                                 
12+20mm            4.5" (manual)              21.75"                          0.6671                                  0.37                                                                                                         
36mm                  4.25" (manual)            21"                               0.7243                                 0.39                                                                                                       
12+36mm            2.25" (manual)           18.25"                          0.8957                                 0.45                                                                                                                   
20+36mm            1.75"                          17"                               1.01                                     0.49                                                                                                           
12+20+36mm      1" (manual)                15.5"                           1.1814                                 0.55                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Did I do something wrong?  From these figures, it looks like I can get more than 1:1 magnification with my 70-200 @70mm.  Or do I only get a 0.21x baseline magnification factor at 200mm?  I initially did this test just to see what distance I should be at for AF to work.  I ended up doing some more math and added those figures to this table.  Can someone please clarify this for me?
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 19, 2012, 02:24:25 AM
Also, according to your math, I should be able to get a 0.8776x magnification on my 24-105mm f/4L @105 if I add the 12mm+20mm+36mm extension tubes to it.  Is that correct?  0.23+(68/105)=.8776
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: serendipidy on October 19, 2012, 05:28:46 AM
Audio,

I looked this up in the Canon 70-200L f2.8 II manual and on page 13, it lists these values for the Canon 12mm II and 25mm II extension tubes maximal magnifications:
12mm tube: @70mm=.23X  @200mm=.28X
25mm tube: @70mm=.42X  @200mm=.36X

It also gives the MFD and FFD which I didn't include.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on October 19, 2012, 06:40:31 AM
From these figures, it looks like I can get more than 1:1 magnification with my 70-200 @70mm.  Or do I only get a 0.21x baseline magnification factor at 200mm?

The 0.21x max mag value for the 70-200 applies at 200mm, it's lower at 70mm, which is where your tubes are more effective.

A 70-200/2.8 II @ 200mm with a 2x TC behind it and a 500D in front gets you 1.2x mag.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: Rat on October 19, 2012, 08:57:24 AM
I thought I'd throw in two macroshots to show what money can get you which effects. The first was made using a 17-40@40mm/f/4 and three extension tubes (13, 21, 31mm) for maximum effect. You can add more tubes to your heart's delight. These tubes have metal mounts, electrical throughput and the three are to be had for about 60-70 usd on eBay. I've not paid any attention to lighting and the such, but you can see that my 23mm coin almost fills out the 36mm of my 5D3 sensor. Great for product detail photography, jewelry, and larger bugs (which I shun like the damned plague).

The second one is the same coin shot with a reversal ring: the 17-40 was attached in reverse to a 70-200 f/4. This required a lamp since stuff is getting pretty dark at this magnification level (hence prolly the yellow hue). Bugs will start complaining about being stared in the unmentionables (or so I hear. I really do not dig bugs). The ring cost me three dollars tops, the lenses a wee bit more.

This is all the macro I will ever need. My needs are pretty modest though, but still - great for experimentation and for me, just the right amount of money to be able to conclude: nice to have, but that's quite enough. Bleedin' bugs ::)

Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: joshmurrah on October 19, 2012, 11:34:33 AM
Since I don't do marco regularly (just need the occasional detail/jewelry shot), and I already have tye 70-200 f/2.8L II and 2x III, this thread has me seriously thinking about trying out the 77mm 500D.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: neuroanatomist on October 19, 2012, 11:37:47 AM
Since I don't do marco regularly (just need the occasional detail/jewelry shot), and I already have tye 70-200 f/2.8L II and 2x III, this thread has me seriously thinking about trying out the 77mm 500D.

It would be good for that.  The biggest issue with the 500D lens is the fixed working distance, but if you are shooting in a controlled environment, it's not a big issue.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: RLPhoto on October 19, 2012, 11:45:29 AM
I am trying to decide on which lens to get next.  I want to play with Macro but I like the versatility of the 70-200.

My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.?  Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out.

I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.  From what I've read, images are very sharp through this lens.  They both have IS, they are both f/2.8 apertures.  I can use the 70-200 for portraits...i guess I can use the 100mm for portrait work as well.  But it seems the macro lens is a specialty lens.  Eventually, I'd like to own both but would the 70-200mm get me by on macro work at all?  (I hope this is not a stupid question!)

Yes, I've heard about the 180mm f/3.5L and I would be open to considering this lens.  I have a 24-105 so I'm also concerned about adding some variety to the focal lengths I already own.  I've got the wide end covered but am seriously lacking on the telephoto side.  It seems the 100mm macro would only be used for macro.

Any insight from experienced users would be great.  BTW, I'm shooting on a 60D.  I will eventually purchase a 5D mkiii and keep the 60D as a 2nd body.

Happy shooting to you all =).  I look forward to reading your replies.

Why not get the 100mm 2.8 Non-L, which is already super sharp, and the 70-200 II. If you like the macro alot, you can sell it for the L version.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: K-amps on October 19, 2012, 12:58:56 PM
From these figures, it looks like I can get more than 1:1 magnification with my 70-200 @70mm.  Or do I only get a 0.21x baseline magnification factor at 200mm?

The 0.21x max mag value for the 70-200 applies at 200mm, it's lower at 70mm, which is where your tubes are more effective.

A 70-200/2.8 II @ 200mm with a 2x TC behind it and a 500D in front gets you 1.2x mag.

It does give you 1.2x but the resolution will be no where close to what a true Macro lens will give you... I am assuming you want to capture the hair follicles on the body of the bugs or the periphery of plant stalks...  :)

The 100mm non-L is a VERY sharp macro lens to start off assuming you are short on funds.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: K-amps on October 19, 2012, 01:00:56 PM
Yes!  I'm a mastering engineer =)  I also teach voice and music production privately so I get to work with lots of musicians.  I decided to start helping out my "kids" with their youtube videos so I got into video and DSLRs.  I didn't realize I'd get this deep into it.  It's a useful skill to have in our field AND it's so much fun!!!!  My camera gives me a break from "work".  Since music became my profession 12 years ago, I haven't had a "hobby" to turn to.  Glad to meet someone who I can appreciate both arts with

Ah, you are a "Pro"... I was a hobbyist for about 20-25 years. Designed my own speakers and power amps... hobby got too noisy for the WAF... Photography is quieter and gets the WAF favorable too once I "soften" her portraits.. .   :P
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: brianleighty on October 19, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
Got my Kenko Extension tubes today.  After some mild testing, I like how they work (and feel/weigh) on the 24-105 more so than the 70-200.  It's just too damn heavy!  I'll try it with a tripod too but DAMN!....  I think for now, this combo (24-105+Kenko tubes) will tide me over.  When I do get the 100mm Macro L, I'll want to buy one of the macro flashes with it as well.  Any recommendations?
@AudioGlenn, I haven't had a chance to put it up yet but I did comparisons between all the lenses I own and a few I'd rented for a wedding a few weeks back. Of them, the 24-105 was the weakest performer. The 70-200 on the other hand was pretty nice. Are you mounting the 70-200 directly to your tripod or are you mounting your camera to the tripod? Macro is definitely one case where using the included tripod mount for the 70-200 is very helpful. Also, of the lenses I tested the 40 2.8 was actually the top performer in my opinion (with the 70-200 50 1.8 and sigma 85 1.4 not far behind)
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 19, 2012, 02:59:51 PM
Got my Kenko Extension tubes today.  After some mild testing, I like how they work (and feel/weigh) on the 24-105 more so than the 70-200.  It's just too damn heavy!  I'll try it with a tripod too but DAMN!....  I think for now, this combo (24-105+Kenko tubes) will tide me over.  When I do get the 100mm Macro L, I'll want to buy one of the macro flashes with it as well.  Any recommendations?
@AudioGlenn, I haven't had a chance to put it up yet but I did comparisons between all the lenses I own and a few I'd rented for a wedding a few weeks back. Of them, the 24-105 was the weakest performer. The 70-200 on the other hand was pretty nice. Are you mounting the 70-200 directly to your tripod or are you mounting your camera to the tripod? Macro is definitely one case where using the included tripod mount for the 70-200 is very helpful. Also, of the lenses I tested the 40 2.8 was actually the top performer in my opinion (with the 70-200 50 1.8 and sigma 85 1.4 not far behind)

For the first test, I was using it handheld but for the last measurements I took, I mounted the 70-200 using the tripod ring and it was much easier (lens on tripod, not camera).  Getting an estimate on my focusing distance really helped out and I will FOR SURE be using the tripod for macro shots when using the 70-200.  I'll try testing out the 40/2.8 as well.  That sounds like fun!
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 19, 2012, 03:05:17 PM
Yes!  I'm a mastering engineer =)  I also teach voice and music production privately so I get to work with lots of musicians.  I decided to start helping out my "kids" with their youtube videos so I got into video and DSLRs.  I didn't realize I'd get this deep into it.  It's a useful skill to have in our field AND it's so much fun!!!!  My camera gives me a break from "work".  Since music became my profession 12 years ago, I haven't had a "hobby" to turn to.  Glad to meet someone who I can appreciate both arts with

Ah, you are a "Pro"... I was a hobbyist for about 20-25 years. Designed my own speakers and power amps... hobby got too noisy for the WAF... Photography is quiter and gets the WAF favorable too .   :P

Agreed.  My neighbors don't hate me nearly as much these days!  hahaha  I do a lot of work in my home studio nowadays since I have the client base and I don't feel like working for somebody else!  Photography gets me out of my "cave" for some fresh air. =)
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 19, 2012, 03:07:36 PM
Audio,

I looked this up in the Canon 70-200L f2.8 II manual and on page 13, it lists these values for the Canon 12mm II and 25mm II extension tubes maximal magnifications:
12mm tube: @70mm=.23X  @200mm=.28X
25mm tube: @70mm=.42X  @200mm=.36X

It also gives the MFD and FFD which I didn't include.

Thanks for this.  I'll look it up as well.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 19, 2012, 03:19:18 PM
I am trying to decide on which lens to get next.  I want to play with Macro but I like the versatility of the 70-200.

My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.?  Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out.

I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.  From what I've read, images are very sharp through this lens.  They both have IS, they are both f/2.8 apertures.  I can use the 70-200 for portraits...i guess I can use the 100mm for portrait work as well.  But it seems the macro lens is a specialty lens.  Eventually, I'd like to own both but would the 70-200mm get me by on macro work at all?  (I hope this is not a stupid question!)

Yes, I've heard about the 180mm f/3.5L and I would be open to considering this lens.  I have a 24-105 so I'm also concerned about adding some variety to the focal lengths I already own.  I've got the wide end covered but am seriously lacking on the telephoto side.  It seems the 100mm macro would only be used for macro.

Any insight from experienced users would be great.  BTW, I'm shooting on a 60D.  I will eventually purchase a 5D mkiii and keep the 60D as a 2nd body.

Happy shooting to you all =).  I look forward to reading your replies.

Why not get the 100mm 2.8 Non-L, which is already super sharp, and the 70-200 II. If you like the macro alot, you can sell it for the L version.

I thought about it but I think I wanna go for the L.  I'll just save up a little longer.  I'm gonna make the 70-200 + tubes work for me for now.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: etg9 on October 19, 2012, 04:34:21 PM
Cameras and Audio seem to go hand in hand. I'll often go out and take pictures for the day and go home to a nice glass of booze and listen to the stereo; that's pretty ideal.

I know you already got the 70-200 already but the 100L (I didn't own the non-l or non IS) is a great piece of glass too and I like the look a lot better for portraits. There is more background separation and better fine detail retention to my eyeballs.

//looking to pick up an MP-E 65 next year
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: K-amps on October 19, 2012, 04:54:48 PM
I thought about it but I think I wanna go for the L.  I'll just save up a little longer.  I'm gonna make the 70-200 + tubes work for me for now.

The shorter the length of your lenses, the greater the magnification offered by extension tubes.  Here's a nice explanation:

http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/ExtensionTube.htm (http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/ExtensionTube.htm)

There is also another trick. Reverse lens Macro!  This gives great magnification than 1x (has it's own challenges though):  see this: 

http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=40 (http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=40)  and this

http://digital-photography-school.com/reverse-lens-macro-close-up-photography-lesson-3 (http://digital-photography-school.com/reverse-lens-macro-close-up-photography-lesson-3)

The idea is that a 50mm lens reversed acts like a +20 Diopter, thus offers massive magnification. Read up and have fun.

Warning: The DoF gets so think that focussing can be even trickier. You need a solid tripod.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: sufirosso on October 19, 2012, 06:41:13 PM
100mm f/2.8 hands down.
Much more versatile, sharper, lighter.
You won`t regret it!

Good luck
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: brianleighty on October 19, 2012, 08:59:51 PM
For the first test, I was using it handheld but for the last measurements I took, I mounted the 70-200 using the tripod ring and it was much easier (lens on tripod, not camera).  Getting an estimate on my focusing distance really helped out and I will FOR SURE be using the tripod for macro shots when using the 70-200.  I'll try testing out the 40/2.8 as well.  That sounds like fun!
Aw yeah if you were doing it handheld then that totally makes sense you were having issues :) Yeah I got my 40 2.8 on the way. I rented it twice and there was a 20% ebay bucks for beach camera so I got it. It'll end up being like $159.20 after you account for ebay bucks. Definitely will be a nice lens to have. Now I just have to decide whether to keep my 50 1.8 and 35 2.0.

Anyways enough off trackness. One other hint. With the 70-200, you can actually use the zoom ring to focus. With extension tubes the focus range is so limited it's much easier to at least get your course focus this way. Then you can do fine adjustment with the focus ring.
Title: Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
Post by: AudioGlenn on October 20, 2012, 12:40:54 AM
For the first test, I was using it handheld but for the last measurements I took, I mounted the 70-200 using the tripod ring and it was much easier (lens on tripod, not camera).  Getting an estimate on my focusing distance really helped out and I will FOR SURE be using the tripod for macro shots when using the 70-200.  I'll try testing out the 40/2.8 as well.  That sounds like fun!

Anyways enough off trackness. One other hint. With the 70-200, you can actually use the zoom ring to focus. With extension tubes the focus range is so limited it's much easier to at least get your course focus this way. Then you can do fine adjustment with the focus ring.

Thanks for the tip.  I actually found that out yesterday during my tests.  Yes, it's a very convenient way to focus.