100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro

[serendipidy]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Rat]

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 :

 

[joshmurrah]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

 

[K-amps]

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.

 

[K-amps]

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.. .

 

[brianleighty]

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)

 

[AudioGlenn]

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!

 

[AudioGlenn]

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 .

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. =)

 

[AudioGlenn]

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.

 

[AudioGlenn]

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.

 

[etg9]

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

 

[K-amps]

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

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 and this

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.

 

[sufirosso]

100mm f/2.8 hands down.
Much more versatile, sharper, lighter.
You won`t regret it!

Good luck

 

[brianleighty]

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.

 

[AudioGlenn]

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.