Basic Information on Lenses Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[scyrene]

No offence, but the 'it's not the equipment' cliché is patently false (but you're by no means the only person to repeat it). Otherwise let's go and photograph insect macros with a pinhole camera. Unless you're saying long lenses only exist for people with no skill? Obviously both the equipment's capabilities *and* the user's skill and knowledge are important. I dunno why you're so against the 180mm macro lens option...

No, I'm saying that just having a specific piece of equipment isn't a guarantee that you'll get the shot. The more you know about the habits and quirks of the subjects you want to photograph the easier it is to create the images that you want.

I have a Canon 180mm macro because I bought into the "long focal length lenses are bug lenses" myth. It sits in my closet collecting dust while I take images like this one at 65mm. Check out the technique section under the photo, I explain how I was able to make that image.

Well then we agree. I welcome constructive advice, but I've been chasing insects for a few years now, and I reckon a 180 is what will help. I've taken plenty of successful images of live insects - even focus stacks - with the MP-E and 100L, but they do not suit all situations I encounter. As I say, if it doesn't work out, I'll sell it - I'm pretty ruthless about getting rid of equipment I don't use, so it's no loss. Canon lenses especially hold their value pretty well, and you could probably get most of what you spent back for an uncommon lens like the 180L.

 

[Fleetie]

1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.

Got any 500D diopters laying around that are 125mm in diameter and can attach to a lens with no front filter?

Sorry, wasn't aware that the lens was such a monster.

Leaving aside the question about why it's necessary to say both "D" and "dioptres" [Yank spelling noted], I suspect Neuro's point was that a 500 dioptre was that a 125mm diameter 500 dioptre lens is practically, though not physically impossible.

The focal length of such a lens would be 1000mm / 500 = 2mm !

Yes, a sphere of glass/whatever can achieve this (but only as BACK focal length, not effective focal length!), but it most certainly wouldn't be usable as a camera optic.

 

[scyrene]

1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.

Got any 500D diopters laying around that are 125mm in diameter and can attach to a lens with no front filter?

Sorry, wasn't aware that the lens was such a monster.

Leaving aside the question about why it's necessary to say both "D" and "dioptres" [Yank spelling noted], I suspect Neuro's point was that a 500 dioptre was that a 125mm diameter 500 dioptre lens is practically, though not physically impossible.

The focal length of such a lens would be 1000mm / 500 = 2mm !

Yes, a sphere of glass/whatever can achieve this (but only as BACK focal length, not effective focal length!), but it most certainly wouldn't be usable as a camera optic.

I think you misunderstand - the 500D is Canon's brand name for a front-mounted closeup filter: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[Fleetie]

1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.

Got any 500D diopters laying around that are 125mm in diameter and can attach to a lens with no front filter?

Sorry, wasn't aware that the lens was such a monster.

Leaving aside the question about why it's necessary to say both "D" and "dioptres" [Yank spelling noted], I suspect Neuro's point was that a 500 dioptre was that a 125mm diameter 500 dioptre lens is practically, though not physically impossible.

The focal length of such a lens would be 1000mm / 500 = 2mm !

Yes, a sphere of glass/whatever can achieve this (but only as BACK focal length, not effective focal length!), but it most certainly wouldn't be usable as a camera optic.

I think you misunderstand - the 500D is Canon's brand name for a front-mounted closeup filter: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx

Ah!

 

[Loswr]

1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.

Got any 500D diopters laying around that are 125mm in diameter and can attach to a lens with no front filter?

Sorry, wasn't aware that the lens was such a monster.

Leaving aside the question about why it's necessary to say both "D" and "dioptres" [Yank spelling noted], I suspect Neuro's point was that a 500 dioptre was that a 125mm diameter 500 dioptre lens is practically, though not physically impossible.

The focal length of such a lens would be 1000mm / 500 = 2mm !

Yes, a sphere of glass/whatever can achieve this (but only as BACK focal length, not effective focal length!), but it most certainly wouldn't be usable as a camera optic.

I think you misunderstand - the 500D is Canon's brand name for a front-mounted closeup filter: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx

Ah!

To clarify further, the Canon 500D is both an entry-level dSLR (aka T1i) and also a screw-on 'filter' close-up lens. Optically, the 500D is a +2 diopter. The designation derives from the focal length, which is 500mm, and the D refers to the double element; there's also a 250D close up lens, 250mm focal length thus +4 diopters. They used to make 240, 250, 450 and 500 lenses (no 'D') that had a single element.

My point was that the 500D close up lens is available in several thread diameters, the largest being 77mm, whereas the 500/4 has a front element that's ~125mm in diameter and lacks filter threads.

 

[scyrene]

1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.

Got any 500D diopters laying around that are 125mm in diameter and can attach to a lens with no front filter?

Sorry, wasn't aware that the lens was such a monster.

Leaving aside the question about why it's necessary to say both "D" and "dioptres" [Yank spelling noted], I suspect Neuro's point was that a 500 dioptre was that a 125mm diameter 500 dioptre lens is practically, though not physically impossible.

The focal length of such a lens would be 1000mm / 500 = 2mm !

Yes, a sphere of glass/whatever can achieve this (but only as BACK focal length, not effective focal length!), but it most certainly wouldn't be usable as a camera optic.

I think you misunderstand - the 500D is Canon's brand name for a front-mounted closeup filter: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx

Ah!

To clarify further, the Canon 500D is both an entry-level dSLR (aka T1i) and also a screw-on 'filter' close-up lens. Optically, the 500D is a +2 diopter. The designation derives from the focal length, which is 500mm, and the D refers to the double element; there's also a 250D close up lens, 250mm focal length thus +4 diopters. They used to make 240, 250, 450 and 500 lenses (no 'D') that had a single element.

My point was that the 500D close up lens is available in several thread diameters, the largest being 77mm, whereas the 500/4 has a front element that's ~125mm in diameter and lacks filter threads.

It's always struck me as odd that they would use the same name for two totally different products available simultaneously. (Your explanation clarifies the logic behind the name of the closeup lens but still, names are a matter of marketing, and giving every product a different one is surely preferable. But it's a minor confusion).

 

[Loswr]

It's always struck me as odd that they would use the same name for two totally different products available simultaneously. (Your explanation clarifies the logic behind the name of the closeup lens but still, names are a matter of marketing, and giving every product a different one is surely preferable. But it's a minor confusion).

It's also confusing when they use the same name for similar products at different times...

 

[Dalantech]

Well then we agree. I welcome constructive advice, but I've been chasing insects for a few years now, and I reckon a 180 is what will help. I've taken plenty of successful images of live insects - even focus stacks - with the MP-E and 100L, but they do not suit all situations I encounter. As I say, if it doesn't work out, I'll sell it - I'm pretty ruthless about getting rid of equipment I don't use, so it's no loss. Canon lenses especially hold their value pretty well, and you could probably get most of what you spent back for an uncommon lens like the 180L.

I carry a 100-400 F4 - F5.6 L II all the time, hoping that when the light is good I'll find something to point it at. Pre-ordered it, so I was one of the first to get one, and I still haven't broken it in. YMMV.

I hold on to old glass just in case my techniques change and I suddenly find a use for them, and they come in handy when I meet up with other photographers who want to try them out.

 

[slclick]

It's always struck me as odd that they would use the same name for two totally different products available simultaneously. (Your explanation clarifies the logic behind the name of the closeup lens but still, names are a matter of marketing, and giving every product a different one is surely preferable. But it's a minor confusion).

It's also confusing when they use the same name for similar products at different times...

My son still uses that same Elph!