September 30, 2014, 06:51:57 PM

Author Topic: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro  (Read 16530 times)

vkiran

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
    • My facebook page
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #30 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...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2012, 11:40:08 PM »

willis

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2012, 09:44:13 AM »
Once you're talking about extension tubes so how much closer does 25mm extension take focusing?
EOS 7D

brianleighty

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 263
    • View Profile
    • Leighty Photography
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #32 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.
Canon 5D Mark II, 50D, XSi, 24-105L IS, Sigma 35 1.4, Canon 40 2.8, Canon 35 2.0, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Canon 50 1.8, 580 EXII, 430 EXII

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14526
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #33 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.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AudioGlenn

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #34 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?
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1519
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #35 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?
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

AudioGlenn

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #36 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
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2012, 12:59:11 AM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3813
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #37 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

AudioGlenn

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #38 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?
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

AudioGlenn

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #39 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
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

serendipidy

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1319
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #40 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.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 05:35:29 AM by serendipidy »
EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14526
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #41 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.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Rat

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #42 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 ::)

« Last Edit: October 19, 2012, 09:02:25 AM by Rat »
5DIII, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200/4IS, 50/1.8II, 85/1.8 and a truckload of gimmicks and bits.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #42 on: October 19, 2012, 08:57:24 AM »

joshmurrah

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #43 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.
gripped 5DIII, 70-200 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 8-15 f/4L, 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.2L II, 2x III, 3x 600EX-RT, ST-E3-RT

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14526
    • View Profile
Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #44 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.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2012, 11:37:47 AM »