August 23, 2014, 11:38:20 AM

Author Topic: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS  (Read 9004 times)

sinners

  • Guest
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« on: August 09, 2011, 06:10:05 AM »
Hi,

Want to jump into macro field. Can one help me differentiate between which one is for what "specific" between canon 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro and canon 100mm f2.8 macro IS. Any links, any videos or any personal views would be most welcome.

Thanks n awaiting ur replies,

regards,

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13874
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2011, 06:42:43 AM »
I have both - they are entirely different lenses, both are excellent in their own way. 

The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is a 'standard' macro lens - it can focus from infinity up to 1:1 magnification.  That means it's useful as a 100mm prime, e.g. for portraits and other uses for a short, moderately fast telephoto lens, as well as a macro lens.  The Hybrid IS is great for use as a short tele lens, and somewhat useful for handholding macro shots (although it's less effective at macro distances).  It's an easy lens to use, and seems to fit very well with 'want to jump into macro'. 

The MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is a very specialized lens.  It starts where standard macro lenses leave off, in that the least magnification is 1:1, and it goes up to 5:1.  You cannot focus beyond macro distances, this lens has no other use.  It's very fun, but more difficult to use.  At 5x, a grain of rice will fill the field of view.

One consequence of shooting at macro distances is that your depth of field is incredibly thin, such that you usually need to stop down to get as much of the subject in focus as possible.  Another consequence is that effective aperture becomes much narrower, in terms of the amount of light reaching the sensor.  The formula is effective aperture = aperture + (aperture x magnification).  Those apply to all macro lenses, so at 1:1 f/2.8 with either the 100mm L or the MP-E 65mm, you're getting f/5.6 light levels.  But with the MP-E 65mm, at 5x f/11 for example, you've got light of f/66.  That means you almost always need to add light to your scene, so in addition to the lens itself, you'll want to budget for something like the MT24-EX Twin Lite, which is really intended for use on the MP-E 65mm.  You'll need a good tripod, and probably a set of macro rails as well - the MP-E 65mm only has one ring, which controls 'focus' and 'magnification' - so, you can either preset the mag and move the camera+lens back and forth to achieve focus (thus the macro rails), or you can pick a distance and focus and get whatever mag you end up with (not as desirable, since that also changes your composition).

IMO, for getting started with macro, the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is the better choice.  If you love macro, add the MP-E 65mm and MT-24EX down the line.  If you sort of like macro, you get a lens that does macro and has other uses as well.  If you really want to jump in with both feet, and can get both MP-E 65mm and MT-24EX, that combination can make some stunning images - but it takes a lot of practice to get there.

Hope that helps...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

recon photography

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2011, 07:26:00 AM »
extension tubes are a cheap option you can consider aswell but i would go for the 100mm f2.8l it has 9rounded apeture blades which produce the nicest bokeh out and if you decide you like extreme macro you can get out your ring flash and tripod aswell as a set of extension tubes and a 2xextender which i believe although i haven't tried it will get you to around 4.4x life size which is just under the 5x of the mp-e 65 super cool thing 

PeterJ

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2011, 08:08:12 AM »
I'd go for the 100mm f/2.8L as well. I was in the same situation and wanted to "play" with macro without too much expense and the IS and focal length lets you get some plausible hand-held shots just being careful with lighting, and of course it works great for the preferred solution of better lighting, a tripod and manual focus. For hand-held you're looking at a few mm DOF at 2.8 which isn't too easy for me at least so the IS and ability to get good light in from a speedlite is great when you invariably need to stop it down a lot.

In reality I decided macro wasn't entirely my thing but I still get great enjoyment from it taking "somewhat macro" shots where my other lenses won't focus near enough. For smaller pets and animals for example it gives great results, and I've also used it to take photos of some cooking and products etc. It's not a bad general 100mm lens either, although focus is a bit slower compared to say a 70-200 f/2.8 so I don't use it a lot as a general lens. But it's a lens I'm sure you'll find lots of uses for either way.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 08:12:46 AM by PeterJ »

recon photography

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2011, 08:16:47 AM »
i had a similar experience i found macro to be not i thought it was i wold definitely buy the 100mm f2.8l lens such a nice allround lens but when you get any closer you need a tripod and the dof is soo small it is hit and miss and it takes a lot of time btw this is for insects flowers should be fine handheld in good light

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13874
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2011, 10:24:32 AM »
Some samples might help.

100L for macro and near-macro:


EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/160 s, f/11, ISO 640


EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/150 s, f/13, ISO 100

100L for non-macro:


EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 320

MP-E 65mm:


EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 5x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX


EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 4x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX


EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 4x, 0.8 s, f/10, ISO 200

The last shot was one of my first with the MP-E 65mm, and that was before I got the MT-24EX.  I tried the shot with 5-10 s exposures, and it just didn't work well.  The solution was to 'paint' the scene with an LED flashlight during the 0.8 s exposure.  A fair bit of trial and error is involved.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

mark millar

  • Guest
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2011, 10:42:28 AM »
Hi -
Everyone is talking about the 100mm.  Would anyone recommend, or have exeperience they'd like to share regarding the 180mm?

LuCoOc

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2011, 10:43:37 AM »
I also recommend the 100L. I have it for almost 1.5 years now and don't use it for macros only. My usual set up is 1000D+100L and a 430EX II with an off-camera shoe cord (e.g. OC-E3). Then I set it to f8.0 and 1/100-160sec and shoot almost every small thing I see ;D
It's really easy to use

Any links, any videos or any personal views would be most welcome.

check out the-digital-picture.com

100L review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

MP-E review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

180L review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-180mm-f-3.5-L-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx
7D - BG
3 Ls - 1 EF - 2 EF-s - 2 M42s
430EX II - YN560-III

LuCoOc

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2011, 10:48:31 AM »
Here are some more 100L-samples:
7D - BG
3 Ls - 1 EF - 2 EF-s - 2 M42s
430EX II - YN560-III

Edwin Herdman

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2011, 12:04:52 PM »
The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is a 'standard' macro lens - it can focus from infinity up to 1:1 magnification.  That means it's useful as a 100mm prime, e.g. for portraits and other uses for a short, moderately fast telephoto lens, as well as a macro lens.  The Hybrid IS is great for use as a short tele lens, and somewhat useful for handholding macro shots (although it's less effective at macro distances).  It's an easy lens to use, and seems to fit very well with 'want to jump into macro'.
Wait...Bryan, is that you?

FredBGG

  • Guest
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2011, 01:16:23 PM »
the 100mm 2.8L macro is a brilliant lens.

for the hell of it here is a "pixel peep" at 100% magnification and crop of a file from a Canon 5D Mark II.



It is my favorit Canon lens. The combination of macro, 100mm focal length, rediculously good IS, light, very nice bokeh, internal focusing, very light and a touch of that medium format look to it.

Portrait


the forum does a funny scaling to it..... click on it to see it better

I am looking forward to putting a next generation sensor behind this lens.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 01:30:27 PM by FredBGG »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13874
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2011, 03:00:56 PM »
The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is a 'standard' macro lens - it can focus from infinity up to 1:1 magnification.  That means it's useful as a 100mm prime, e.g. for portraits and other uses for a short, moderately fast telephoto lens, as well as a macro lens.  The Hybrid IS is great for use as a short tele lens, and somewhat useful for handholding macro shots (although it's less effective at macro distances).  It's an easy lens to use, and seems to fit very well with 'want to jump into macro'.
Wait...Bryan, is that you?

I'm John, but I'm a frequent participant on TDP if that's the Bryan you mean.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

mark millar

  • Guest
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2011, 05:57:57 PM »
John - Do you have any experience wtih the 180?
Mark

TexPhoto

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 893
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2011, 06:04:55 PM »
In the late 60s Porshe made a car called the 917 striclty for racing.  It was going 240mph when other cars could not crack  200.  It became known as "the widowmaker" for obvious reasons.  Awsome car?  Yes!  A good car for someone interested in thier first sports car. Hell no.

65mm Macro something to consider as your first Macro?  Er no.

100mm marcro is a great first macro.  IS vertion even better. 

FOB2009

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2011, 09:03:51 PM »
Don't forget the Zeiss 100/2.0 macro -- incredible for macro and portraits.