I'm hoping that 65mm RF macro is the MP-E 65mm replacement. It would get me to switch over to mirror-less.
Upvote
0
Patent: Optical formulas for Canon RF macro lenses
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I'm hoping that 65mm RF macro is the MP-E 65mm replacement. It would get me to switch over to mirror-less.
That focal lenght is really only good for natural light work (too much working distance for a flash) and the only practical way to get it above 1x is to use telecoverters.
Upvote
0
Also hope the 65mm will be the MP-E counterpart with improved sharpness.
Switching to R system one day gonna be a budget disaster...
Same, and if it were an L lens even better but I can only get so erect
Upvote
0
I don't know of too many people using the MP-E 65mm with natural light, and a flash pretty much makes IS obsolete. I've been hoping that Canon would update the MP-E, but I don't think they are going to make anymore EF lenses. So really hoping that 65mm RF lens is the MP-E replacement, and it would cause me to move the RF cameras. Don't know of anyone shooting with the MP-E on an RF body.
Upvote
0
No one should ever buy a macro lens because they can use it for something else, and macro lenses in the 100mm range are not optimal (too much workign distance for a flash, and for natural light you'll wish you had more room to work). IS is obsolete if you're using a flash, since the short duration of light it produces is your "shutter speed" and when using natural light IS only compensates for your motion. Worthless for images like this one where the subject is actively foraging.
Sweat Bee Foraging in a Sourgrass Flower III by John Kimbler, on FlickrI've only shot single frames with the camera in my hand. So for me a lighter version of the MP-E with an RF mount would definitely get me to switch to an RF camera body.
Upvote
0
That focal length offers too much working distance for flash based macro, and it's a pain to get that lens above 1x. I prefer lenses in the 60mm range since it's easier to freeze motion and get good specular highlights due to the short working distance. I have the 180mm L and it sits in my closet collecting dust (bought it based on some bad advice). I'm using the MP-E 65mm (and sometimes the EF-S 60mm + tubes) to get shots like this one:
Honeybee Covered in Zucchini Pollen by John Kimbler, on FlickrI'm hoping that the 65mm patent is for the MP-E 65mm replacement.
Upvote
0
That's a magnificent photo!That focal length offers too much working distance for flash based macro, and it's a pain to get that lens above 1x. I prefer lenses in the 60mm range since it's easier to freeze motion and get good specular highlights due to the short working distance. I have the 180mm L and it sits in my closet collecting dust (bought it based on some bad advice). I'm using the MP-E 65mm (and sometimes the EF-S 60mm + tubes) to get shots like this one:
I'm hoping that the 65mm patent is for the MP-E 65mm replacement.
How did you get so close to take the photo without the bee flying away?
Upvote
0
I set up four bamboo polls tied together at the top and separated at the ground by about two feet, then planted Zucchini close to every poll. Gonna get them to climb the bamboo so I don't have to lie on my stomach to take those shots.
Upvote
0
The liquid she's feeding on is some sugar syrup that I had in a syringe. Give them something to eat and they'll let you get close. I used the same trick to inject sugar syrup into a Lavender flower...
Feeding Honeybee IX by John Kimbler, on Flickr
Upvote
0
I just checked out some of your pictures on Flickr-pro. They're amazing! I'm retired and a non-pro who's taken some good photos. I have a few printed large and on display in my little town's art gallery, but nothing like this! My EM1mk2 with 300mm f4 pro lens (FF Equivalent 600mm f8) takes some amazing handheld closeups up to a FF equivalent 0.48x. But I plan to buy the upcoming R5 and am interested in what I can do with it for closeups. I always thought their expected RF 180mm macro would be the best for me, but now you've got me wondering whether I should try to do what you're doing with the 65mm version.The liquid she's feeding on is some sugar syrup that I had in a syringe. Give them something to eat and they'll let you get close. I used the same trick to inject sugar syrup into a Lavender flower...
Also, I've been wanting to find a website to collect & show off my pictures where I don't have to do website programming or worry about the site owner having poor privacy/copyright protection. Do you think Flickr-pro might be the best site for me? If so, this would be a good time for me to get one started.
Upvote
0
Thanks!
Flickr has been a mixed bag for me. Every time one of my images has been stolen it has been from Flickr, and every time someone has contacted me because they want to license my images for print it's because they saw then on Flickr. So it must be a popular site.
Upvote
0
Can you control who sees your site? That is, could I say my site is private, then mention it to people I know and tell flickr that only those email addresses are allowed to see it? That way my friends could see it, or others I specifically offer access to. As you can tell, I'm more interested in privacy and sharing to a small group of friends than I am to letting the whole world see.
Upvote
0
If you did that then people wouldn't be able to find you. If you're really worried about people stealing your work then you can't post your images online...
You can restrict who can see your full size images. It won't stop people from stealing the lower resolution versions.
Upvote
0
If I can choose the low-resolution size (and/or watermark them somehow) that the public sees, so that I won't sweat them possibly being stolen, then I would be OK with it.
Since you say I can choose (somehow) who I allow to see the hires versions then I would be fine opening up an account after all.
Upvote
0
I wouldn't bother with a watermark since they are really easy to remove. Just restrict who can access the full resolution images to "Friends and Family" (I think that's what the setting is called).
Upvote
0
Not really since the working distance wouldn't change. Odds are you're not gonna field shoot anything with natural light at 4x, and if you're using a flash it's gonna be tough to get good light quality at the 180mm's working distance. At that point you might as well just shell out the grand for an MP-E 65mm macro lens.
Upvote
0
Just wanted to point out that whatever magnification you get from the lens is all the mag that rig will give you. Cropping an image, either with a smaller than full frame sensor or in post, creates an enlargement and is not the same as increasing magnification. So even though my 80D has a 1.6x crop sensor when I have my MP-E 65mm set to 2x then twice life is the magnification, for example. It's not 3.2x...
Upvote
0
