Which lenses to pick up next?

[n0iZe]

Have you thought about the MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro ?

I have, but I'm worried about the working distance...
65mm is really really really close, so...

Do you own the lens? If so, what would you say about it?

Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either.  Usually, a 0.25x or so magnification is sufficient for butterflies - what you really need is working distance, and the 9.5" with the 180L often isn't enough.  At 4-5 feet distance, you'll get higher mag with the 300/4L IS (0.24x maximum magnification, great for flowers and butterflies).

I prefer having a hard choice to being sorry about not informing myself enough before doing the choice part!

Maybe the 300mm would be worth an idea too, thanks for that feedback. I just know that my 70-200 doesn't quite do the job on flowers (at least on smaller ones)... Neither on butterflies. I wonder if the extra 100mm would give me that much of a difference there. Since it adds 0.5m to minimum focussing distance, it would end up with the same as the 70-200 at 200 (1m), wouldn't it?

Maybe I do a mistake here or haven't thought about something - today doesn't seem like my day in thinking a lot...

Anyone ever tried a 180L with a 1.4 Extender?
Would be quite an expensive solution, but I could use the extender for my 70-200 also, so maybe that would be an option?

Thanks so much for your time!

[Marsu42]

If your 70-200 is already f/2.8, that's a great portrait lens and I'd get the 180L. Else, I'd say the 100L is the better choice.

+1 ... 100L + 70-200 is really overlapping, you could just get the non-L macro in this case. One drawback of the 180mm macro is that the af performance on the 1dx/5d3 is worse than the 100L.

Anyone ever tried a 180L with a 1.4 Extender? Would be quite an expensive solution, but I could use the extender for my 70-200 also, so maybe that would be an option?

I'm using the Kenko 1.4x tc on the 100L, works fine, iq and af @f4 is very good. If you want the Canon extender, be sure that it fits the lens. Concerning 180+tc: A friend of mine is using this on his Nikon, seems to work pretty well for him as a combined macro and tele lens with very near focusing distance.

[n0iZe]

If your 70-200 is already f/2.8, that's a great portrait lens and I'd get the 180L. Else, I'd say the 100L is the better choice.

+1 ... 100L + 70-200 is really overlapping, you could just get the non-L macro in this case. One drawback of the 180mm macro is that the af performance on the 1dx/5d3 is worse than the 100L.

That's my main problem - AF. And I'm afraid that AF could be even worse with the 1.4x Extender attached to the 180L...

Anyone ever tried a 180L with a 1.4 Extender? Would be quite an expensive solution, but I could use the extender for my 70-200 also, so maybe that would be an option?

I'm using the Kenko 1.4x tc on the 100L, works fine, iq and af @f4 is very good. If you want the Canon extender, be sure that it fits the lens. Concerning 180+tc: A friend of mine is using this on his Nikon, seems to work pretty well for him as a combined macro and tele lens with very near focusing distance.

I would probably go for the Canon Extender, although I've seen that the Kenko one delivers really good IQ.
Also I've seen that the 2x Extender really isn't what I want to do to my photos 

[Marsu42]

That's my main problem - AF. And I'm afraid that AF could be even worse with the 1.4x Extender attached to the 180L...

See the 5d3 manual page 84: The af capability with the extender is still "group h", and since the af on my 100/2.8+tc works just fine I would expect the 180/3.5 do do ok, too.

I would probably go for the Canon Extender, although I've seen that the Kenko one delivers really good IQ.

I got the Kenko one because Canon doesn't fit on their own 70-300L. If it's different with your lenses and you've got the money, of course get the original tc with sealing, though the iq isn't said to be vastly different.

[briansquibb]

Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
However, I do really want to get some nice butterfly photos.

Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either.  Usually, a 0.25x or so magnification is sufficient for butterflies - what you really need is working distance, and the 9.5" with the 180L often isn't enough.  At 4-5 feet distance, you'll get higher mag with the 300/4L IS (0.24x maximum magnification, great for flowers and butterflies).

With all due respect - I believe the minimum focussing distance on the 180 is about 18 inches - and that is for 1:1 magnification 

[Marsu42]

Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either.

I nearly made the same comment when I read "flowers", but my experiences with butterflies are different. I have done very nice shots with my 70-300L(x1.6 on crop), but the macro shots from my 100mm(x.1.6) lenses are much better, esp. on smaller animals. When they sit still, you can crawl up to them slowly so the macro working distance esp. with the 180mm should be more than adequate - it just takes more tries than from tele range. So yes, it's not "needed", but no, shooting butterflies is a good reason to buy a macro lens.

[charlesa]

100 mm f/2.8 L IS. Simply a beauty of a lens, both for macro and as a portrait prime. Bokeh master me calls it!

[neuroanatomist]

Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
However, I do really want to get some nice butterfly photos.

Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either.  Usually, a 0.25x or so magnification is sufficient for butterflies - what you really need is working distance, and the 9.5" with the 180L often isn't enough.  At 4-5 feet distance, you'll get higher mag with the 300/4L IS (0.24x maximum magnification, great for flowers and butterflies).

With all due respect - I believe the minimum focussing distance on the 180 is about 18 inches - and that is for 1:1 magnification 

Yes, but also with all due respect, I didn't state the minimum focus distance is 9.5", I stated that is the minimum working distance.  MFD is measured from the sensor, ignoring the physical length of the lens. Working distance is measured from the front element - in my experience, butterflies don't get startled and fly away because the sensor is 18" away, they fly off because the business end of the lens is even closer... 

[briansquibb]

Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
However, I do really want to get some nice butterfly photos.

Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either.  Usually, a 0.25x or so magnification is sufficient for butterflies - what you really need is working distance, and the 9.5" with the 180L often isn't enough.  At 4-5 feet distance, you'll get higher mag with the 300/4L IS (0.24x maximum magnification, great for flowers and butterflies).

With all due respect - I believe the minimum focussing distance on the 180 is about 18 inches - and that is for 1:1 magnification 

Yes, but also with all due respect, I didn't state the minimum focus distance is 9.5", I stated that is the minimum working distance.  MFD is measured from the sensor, ignoring the physical length of the lens. Working distance is measured from the front element - in my experience, butterflies don't get startled and fly away because the sensor is 18" away, they fly off because the business end of the lens is even closer... 

But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...

[neuroanatomist]

But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...

True - not claiming it's a macro lens.  It comes down to whether or not you need 1:1 magnification for your subjects, and if, at 1:1, you can get sufficient DoF (do butterflies sit still for focus stacking?).

[briansquibb]

But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...

True - not claiming it's a macro lens.  It comes down to whether or not you need 1:1 magnification for your subjects, and if, at 1:1, you can get sufficient DoF (do butterflies sit still for focus stacking?).

I take butterflies from about 3ft away on the 180, more on the 1D4.

There is little in it between the 300 and the 180 - except of course the 180 will get a lot closer if needed and still gives good resolution at f/22

[bvincents]

Dear all,

Thank you very much for all the posts, I'm very happy about that!

To answer some of the questions:
I'd mainly use the macro lens outside, and I'm not really a tripod fan to be honest. (Maybe it's because I do not really own a good one - probably should pick one up one day...)

Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
However, I do really want to get some nice butterfly photos. I tried that a year or so ago with a 450D and the Sigma 70-300mm - overall it was a pain.
But here's my problem: Either I go for the 100mm which is faster and has IS (I like both things there!) or I go for the 180mm granting me more working distance, however I'd have to deal with slower AF.
Perhaps the 100mm and a 1.4x or even 2x extender would fulfill my needs?
Good thing would be that I could also use that extender on the 70-200mm (which is f/2.8L IS II, to answer another question) which would at least bridge and let me find out if I'm really into bird photography or if I just want to do it because I can not do it at this point.  And if I'm really into it, I'll have to save for a 400mm I guess.

So what's your thought on the extender thing? I know image quality would suffer a bit, but in the end I prefer a picture that suffered a bit to a picture that's not there at all. 

And background blur is not the most important thing to me. Since higher background blur does also mean I have to set a higher aperture (number that is, of course the aperture itself has to be decreased) in order to get everything as sharp as I want, it's probably not the best idea. Especially not when the one with the higher background blur has no IS. 

Let's see what you guys think about it, I really appreciate every single feedback you guys can give me.

Thanks a lot in advance.

n0iZe

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)
Flowers; go for the 100mm
Butterfly's: go for the 180 ( they tend to fly away when you get to close :-))
The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.
Do butterflies sit still for autofocus? No but if you get up early in the morning before they get heated by the sun,
then they will sit still. Another trick is to catch one and put it in the refrigiator for a while.
Oh by the way, checkout this guy's pictures in his gallery
http://www.juzaphoto.com/index2.php?l=en&pg=home
Happy shooting
Bjarne Vincents

[neuroanatomist]

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)

The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.

The 100L Macro isn't compatible with the Canon extenders, either.  Only primes of 135mm and longer.

The MP-E 65mm is a great lens (one of my favorites!), but it's definitely not a casual-use macro lens.  I agree that a macro flash is a big help - I have the MT24-EX (although I have done flower shots with lighting from a handheld LED flashlight).

[wickidwombat]

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)

The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.

The 100L Macro isn't compatible with the Canon extenders, either.  Only primes of 135mm and longer.

The MP-E 65mm is a great lens (one of my favorites!), but it's definitely not a casual-use macro lens.  I agree that a macro flash is a big help - I have the MT24-EX (although I have done flower shots with lighting from a handheld LED flashlight).

the 100L is brilliant with the kenko extender though

[Razor2012]

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)

The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.

The 100L Macro isn't compatible with the Canon extenders, either.  Only primes of 135mm and longer.

The MP-E 65mm is a great lens (one of my favorites!), but it's definitely not a casual-use macro lens.  I agree that a macro flash is a big help - I have the MT24-EX (although I have done flower shots with lighting from a handheld LED flashlight).

the 100L is brilliant with the kenko extender though

What kind of magnification do you get with the Kenko's again?