I agree with both peters and neuroanatomist--1:1.
Although I suppose some could argue that all you need is a short minimum focus distance.
Although I suppose some could argue that all you need is a short minimum focus distance.
Upvote
0
Good point, I forgot it was EF-M and neglected to check.
Thanks for the correction!
I have the MP-E 65. Not sure I’d actually want a ring light, too flat. The TwinLite does much better for adding depth to my shots (I had both MR and MT, didn’t keep the former).
Macro rigs can get bulky! Even with the MT-24 EX, I sometimes prefer to get the heads further off axis with a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets. Then there’s the need to light the background. All of that can turn into a Frankenmacro rig...I've only ever rented the the MP-E for a brief moment. I never got a chance to try any purpose built lights with it, just rigged up a holder for my two 430EX flashes. It did the job pretty well. But you know, bulky.
My God! What a rig!! Do you actually handhold it?Macro rigs can get bulky! Even with the MT-24 EX, I sometimes prefer to get the heads further off axis with a pair of Wimberley F-2 brackets. Then there’s the need to light the background. All of that can turn into a Frankenmacro rig...
You need to add a 400 f/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters to photograph soccer, rugby and American football in crowded stadiums with ugly backgrounds. (Maybe ditch the 800 f/5.6.) Also, a 200 f/2 might be useful if you're ever hired to photograph the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. If you have to do indoor architectural photography, the 17 TSE and 24 TSE would also be useful.Hm, i have the 100mm 2,8L - I use it mostly for some portraits and occasionaly Macros for product shots. I must say that I actualy enjoy the lense. Is there something particular wrong with it, that I miss?
However, of course its very important for canon to include a good macro lense in the R lineup.
In my opinion 90% of the average photographers work can be done with a 24-70 F2,8 IS. However, I think for a truely unique lense lineup, Canon has to release this selection for the R mount, before it truely holds up to a professionals needs:
8mm Fisheye
11-24mm Ultra wide
16-35mm f4 Wide angle for travel
16-35mm f2,8 Wide angle
24-70 f2,8 general lense
24-105 f4 general lense for travel
70-200m f2,8 light tele
70-200mm f4 light tele for travel
100-400mm f 5,6 tele
200-600mm f5,6 sports and wildlife tele
800mm high end sports tele
24mm f1,4
35mm f1,4
50mm f1,2
85mm f1,4
135mm f1,8
50mm f2 Macro
100mm f2 Macro
60mm TSE
90mm TSE
In my opinion this is a perfect lineup to truely support pretty much any kind of professional work
You missed the wide TS-E lenses. I'd love to see an updated version of the Canon TS-E 17mm f4L in RF to eliminate its distortion.Canon has to release this selection for the R mount, before it truely holds up to a professionals needs:
8mm Fisheye
11-24mm Ultra wide
16-35mm f4 Wide angle for travel
16-35mm f2,8 Wide angle
24-70 f2,8 general lense
24-105 f4 general lense for travel
70-200m f2,8 light tele
70-200mm f4 light tele for travel
100-400mm f 5,6 tele
200-600mm f5,6 sports and wildlife tele
800mm high end sports tele
24mm f1,4
35mm f1,4
50mm f1,2
85mm f1,4
135mm f1,8
50mm f2 Macro
100mm f2 Macro
60mm TSE
90mm TSE
How about an RF TS-E Macro that is Auto Focus - something like the EF 100mm f/2.8L but with tilt/shift?
Is that possible?
Wouldn't a bellows make nearly any lens a Macro?I agree with both peters and neuroanatomist--1:1.
Although I suppose some could argue that all you need is a short minimum focus distance.
Yes, I do. It’s a little unwieldy...but less so than my 600/4L IS II.My God! What a rig!! Do you actually handhold it?
What distortion?You missed the wide TS-E lenses. I'd love to see an updated version of the Canon TS-E 17mm f4L in RF to eliminate its distortion.