Macro system-70-200 f2.8 L II IS USM + 2x extender + extension tubes ANYONE???

[Archangel72]

I'm planning to buy Canon EOS 1Dx when hit market, and I now for sure that I will buy 70-200 f2.8 L II with 2X extender to reach 140-400mm. My plan is to shoot macro as well.
My question is...

Did anyone tried to combine this setup for macro shooting?

70-200 f2.8 L II IS USM + 2x extender + extension tubes

What's the gain in magnification compared to MP-E 65mm?

Light setup for this system should be interesting too look at. I presume at least 2x 580EX or 600 (new one) on their stand with attached diffusers placed 0.5m from each side of the lens.

Please post your shots with this configuration if there is any shot at all ! 
Thanx in advance.

Archangel72

[Kernuak]

Extension tubes become less useful, the longer the focal length. At 200mm, they will only have minimal effect, less so than the extender in terms of increased magnification. A combination of the extender and extension tubes could result in lower magnification, although I haven't done any calculations. Something like a 500D closeup lens would have more effect. In contrast, if I add a full Kenko set (68mm in total) of extension tubes to my 100mm macro, I am getting close to 2x magnification (although vignetting is quite impressive ). Adding a 1.4x extender gives me less with the extension tubes added as well.

[neuroanatomist]

70-200 f2.8 L II IS USM + 2x extender + extension tubes

What's the gain in magnification compared to MP-E 65mm?

Not even close.  The 70-200mm gives a native max mag of 0.21x.  The 2x extender will double that to 0.42x.  Extension tubes won't help much, since they're more effective at shorter focal lengths, so at 200mm (where you'd need to be to get the 0.42x with the extender), even stacking two 25mm tubes will only get you to about 0.5x. 

You'd be better off with the 500D close up lens, which on the bare 70-200mm II will get you to 0.6x, then if you add the 2x extender you'd be at 1.2x. 

That's about the most you'd get with the 70-200 II, and 1.2x is just barely edging into the MP-E 65mm's 1x-5x magnification range.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It won't compare to a mpe-65 or match a 1:1 macro.  You can get a .36 max magnification with a 25mm extension tube, a 2X extender might double that.  You will still be less than a 1:1 macro.
 
See http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?LensComp=0&Lens=687&Units=E
 
for some of the information.
 
Also:  http://flybacon.com/Cameras/Macro.aspx

[Archangel72]

I understand...

Thank you for your answers.
I think there is not much to say here, since the magnification is not on par, or even close to any macro lens on market.
It seems that I will have to purchase MP-E 65mm eventualy, if I want to achieve stunning macro results.

Thank you people for your fast respond to my question.
The drink is on me 

[hyles]

I understand...

Thank you for your answers.
I think there is not much to say here, since the magnification is not on par, or even close to any macro lens on market.
It seems that I will have to purchase MP-E 65mm eventualy, if I want to achieve stunning macro results.

Thank you people for your fast respond to my question.
The drink is on me 

Well, you don't have to by the mp-e 65 unless you need very high magnification. You can take a macro lens and adding extension tubes.
If you want to try extension and converter togheter  on your 70-200, mount the tubes on the lens and then mount the converter on the tubes, you'll reach higher mag than vice versa.
Diego

[kirispupis]

As already stated, this is not even close to the MP-E 65.  I have the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III and use the pair often on my 7D.  I use it more often as a telephoto for birds but it does function as a low power macro at times.  Here are two shots with them.  Note that even though I own extension tubes, I do not use them as it isn't worth making the setup even longer for the minimal magnification gain (+ AF is affected, not important for macro but very important for birds).


http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/6778619380/#in/photostream


http://500px.com/photo/5097144

In terms of lighting, this really depends.  Generally I use flash only in situations where the subject field is small enough that I may completely control it (MP-E 65) or where I need a fill for things like insects' eyes.  With my 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III I only use ambient light.  Flash tends to have a negative impact for most of my uses.

In terms of the MP-E 65, note that it is a very specialist lens.  If you are not already very familiar with macro, I do not recommend this lens.  It is extremely challenging to photograph at these magnifications and requires a lot of practice and patience.

The 100L is a much better general purpose macro.  Currently I mainly use my MP-E 65 for insects and my 100L for almost everything else.

Here's a recent shot from my 100L (focus stacked)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/6787561780/#in/photostream

Here's a shot from my MP-E 65 for comparison. This is the only one of the four shots where I used flash.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/6046280004/#in/photostream

Note that the crocus shot would not be possible with the MP-E 65, while the fly shot would not be possible with the 100L.  They are both great lenses, but are completely different in their uses.

[Archangel72]

Thank you "Hyles"... and "kirispupis" BIG thanx on your very extensive description between 100mm and 65mm lenses.
Even macro shooting is split in section and subsections, which is great for enthusiast, and little less great for wallet, but... what a heck... no pain no gain.

I'll start my "macro career" with 70-200 + ext. 2x, and than I'll see to my next heading.
I'll be honest with all of you, MP-E 65mm seems like it's going to be my first extreme macro lens.
Maybe hard to shoot with it, but, I am a very, very patient man, and person who is willing to learn... a lot.
Thanks again for your answers folks.
And now... the drinks 
Cheers

[kirispupis]

The MP-E 65 is a very fun lens.  For the record I started in macro with a Sigma 80-400 + Canon 500D diopter.  I then moved straight to the MP-E 65 + MT-24EX.  I then foolishly thought I could buy "everything I ever needed for macro" in one swoop by putting in a rather large order for the 100L, Gitzo 2541EX, TS-E 90, RRS macro rails, and 300/4 IS.

Since then I have spent far more money setting up a drop photography system, focus stacking with the Stackshot, and attaching microscope objectives to my camera.

You may find this blog I wrote several years ago on the MP-E 65 interesting - http://calevphoto.com/2008/10/22/zen-and-the-art-of-the-mp-e-65/

[Marsu42]

Here's a shot from my MP-E 65 for comparison. This is the only one of the four shots where I used flash.

Excellent picture. Don't you think one can get these shots out of a 100mm macro, too? Looking at the largest image from flickr, I think concerning the resolution/magnification it should be comparable at least on crop.

My problem with these outdoors is just that insects tend to fly away, so I usually hardly have the time to adjust the tripod (which is needed for 1/200s @f11, or you get 1 good shot out of every 20 or so) let alone optimize the flashes. I'm always wondering if the best shots of insect sitting somewhere are taken from dead animals that cannot move... not necessarily in your case, but as a pro it would be tempting if you drop moral concerns.

[mirekti]

Does anybody have a sample of 70-200 II + 2x III + 500D?

What does it mean when people say you lose focus to infinity? Does it just mean that you point to something that would usually stop the focus ring at infinity mark, but because you lost focus to infinity it wont stop?

[Dianoda]

Does anybody have a sample of 70-200 II + 2x III + 500D?

What does it mean when people say you lose focus to infinity? Does it just mean that you point to something that would usually stop the focus ring at infinity mark, but because you lost focus to infinity it wont stop?

The normal focus range for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is 1.2m to infinity, but the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 500D combo the focus range is probably something like .6m - 2.8m (I don't know what the actually distances are, just pulled those out to illustrate the difference).  So while the close-up lens lets you get closer to your subjects, you also lose the ability to focus on subjects further away.

[neuroanatomist]

What does it mean when people say you lose focus to infinity? Does it just mean that you point to something that would usually stop the focus ring at infinity mark, but because you lost focus to infinity it wont stop?

The normal focus range for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is 1.2m to infinity, but the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 500D combo the focus range is probably something like .6m - 2.8m (I don't know what the actually distances are, just pulled those out to illustrate the difference).  So while the close-up lens lets you get closer to your subjects, you also lose the ability to focus on subjects further away.

The explanation is correct, but the example is a bad one.  If you substitute 'extension tube' for '500D' it's fine, that's how extension tubes work.  But with the 500D close up lens, your working distange is not a range, it's a fixed distance (not coincidentally, that's in the name of the lens: 500D = 500mm working distance = 50cm = 19.6", and the 250D close up lens is half of that).  Working distance is measured from the front of the lens to the subject; focus distance is working distance plus the distance from the sensor/image plane to the front element.

[verysimplejason]

Just a thought,  why don't you start with the 100mm macro (either L/non-L)?  Even if you progress to an MP-E 65 later, you'll still find a lot uses for the 100mm.  The non-L USM version is not that expensive.  You can get a second-hand lens at less than $500 complete with accessories.

[mirekti]

not coincidentally, that's in the name of the lens: 500D = 500mm working distance = 50cm = 19.6", and the 250D close up lens is half of that).

Let me just sum it up. If I wanted to take a photo of any subject is should be 19.6" from the lens and than I start to play with the zoom and aperture, right?

Just a thought,  why don't you start with the 100mm macro (either L/non-L)? 

Well, I'm not into macro so much, but there are occasions where I'd like to take a photo that would look like it e.g. coffee beans and this 500D seemed to be a good idea cos I don't have any room left in my bag.