Mp-e and 100mmL sharpness

[simonbratt99]

Hi

With the MP-e at 1:1, is there any difference in the sharpness compared to the canon 100mm L (assuming close macro work)?

 

[Loswr]

The 100L is sharper at 1:1 than the MP-E 65mm with both at f/2.8 (probably not where you'd be for shooting macro). They're similar at f/8.

 

[simonbratt99]

Cheers.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The 100L is sharper at 1:1 than the MP-E 65mm with both at f/2.8 (probably not where you'd be for shooting macro). They're similar at f/8.

Interesting ... just yesterday I was watching a tutorial by Ben Long on macro work with MP-E ... been tempted many times to buy it but never went through with it ... I think its too much work using that lens :-[

 

[Loswr]

It's definitely an extremely fun lens. Having the right tools makes using it much easier. A stable tripod, a macro rail, and the MT-24EX are very useful...almost required.

 

[kirispupis]

I own both lenses and they are both among my most used lenses.

My perception is the MP-E 65 may be a tad sharper at 1:1, but if you are trying to compare these lenses at all then you are asking the wrong questions. These lenses have completely different purposes.

You will almost certainly need the MT-24EX with the MP-E 65. The vast majority of my shots with it are handheld and you will need this flash to get anything with it. In terms of whether you will need a macro rail and tripod, that depends on what you are shooting. Macro rails and a tripod are really the domain of abstract work or focus stacked closeups.

Personally I own a pair of RRS macro rails and a Gitzo Explorer-type tripod. I use them far more with my 100 macro than with my MP-E 65, and on the rare occasion I use them with my MP-E 65 it is with a Cognisys Stackshot in order to handle the DOF issue.

For insects and drops of water, however, you'll be shooting hand held most of them time so you'll just need an MT-24EX.

Still, if you are not familiar enough with macro I advise you to stick with the 100L because the MP-E 65 will just frustrate you.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Still, if you are not familiar enough with macro I advise you to stick with the 100L because the MP-E 65 will just frustrate you.

Well said.
When it comes to macro I'm mediocre at best and having watched a tutorial on macro work using MP-E 65, I think it is quite a bit more complex and time consuming than using the 100L. I find the 100 L a lot more easier ... another interesting think which I was not aware of was how long the MP-E 65 lens barrel zooms out at 5x Macro ... I always thought it was tiny lens.

 

[Loswr]

I find the 100 L a lot more easier ... another interesting think which I was not aware of was how long the MP-E 65 lens barrel zooms out at 5x Macro ... I always thought it was tiny lens.

Did you know that the 100 L gets "shorter" as you focus closer? Not on the outside, but on the inside. Although it's a 100 mm lens when focused at infinity, when focused at 1:1, it's actually approximately 68 mm in focal length.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I find the 100 L a lot more easier ... another interesting think which I was not aware of was how long the MP-E 65 lens barrel zooms out at 5x Macro ... I always thought it was tiny lens.

Did you know that the 100 L gets "shorter" as you focus closer? Not on the outside, but on the inside. Although it's a 100 mm lens when focused at infinity, when focused at 1:1, it's actually approximately 68 mm in focal length.

Interesting ... "68mm", that's quite a bit "shorter" than 100mm.
So technically, the "tiny" (MP-E 65) looking lens is actually a "long" lens while the "taller" looking 100 L is actually a lot "shorter" lens. You learn something new everyday, that's what makes me read CR.
Advanced Happy Weekend to all ... here in the middle east our weekend has already started (our week offs are on Friday & Saturday).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I find the 100 L a lot more easier ... another interesting think which I was not aware of was how long the MP-E 65 lens barrel zooms out at 5x Macro ... I always thought it was tiny lens.

Did you know that the 100 L gets "shorter" as you focus closer? Not on the outside, but on the inside. Although it's a 100 mm lens when focused at infinity, when focused at 1:1, it's actually approximately 68 mm in focal length.

Focal lengths are specified at infinity, which seems to make little sense for a Macro Lens, they really should add that into the spec.

Most lenses have a very difficult focal length with close focus. I use my 15-85mm zoom on a light table for close focus, and it zooms significantly as I focus. I focus first and then zoom, and finally, fine tune the focus.