Which lenses to pick up next?

[Marsu42]

Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either.

I nearly made the same comment when I read "flowers", but my experiences with butterflies are different. I have done very nice shots with my 70-300L(x1.6 on crop), but the macro shots from my 100mm(x.1.6) lenses are much better, esp. on smaller animals. When they sit still, you can crawl up to them slowly so the macro working distance esp. with the 180mm should be more than adequate - it just takes more tries than from tele range. So yes, it's not "needed", but no, shooting butterflies is a good reason to buy a macro lens.

 

[charlesa]

100 mm f/2.8 L IS. Simply a beauty of a lens, both for macro and as a portrait prime. Bokeh master me calls it!

 

[Loswr]

Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
However, I do really want to get some nice butterfly photos.

Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either. Usually, a 0.25x or so magnification is sufficient for butterflies - what you really need is working distance, and the 9.5" with the 180L often isn't enough. At 4-5 feet distance, you'll get higher mag with the 300/4L IS (0.24x maximum magnification, great for flowers and butterflies).

With all due respect - I believe the minimum focussing distance on the 180 is about 18 inches - and that is for 1:1 magnification

Yes, but also with all due respect, I didn't state the minimum focus distance is 9.5", I stated that is the minimum working distance. MFD is measured from the sensor, ignoring the physical length of the lens. Working distance is measured from the front element - in my experience, butterflies don't get startled and fly away because the sensor is 18" away, they fly off because the business end of the lens is even closer...

 

[briansquibb]

Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
However, I do really want to get some nice butterfly photos.

Hate to make your choices more difficult, but a macro lens isn't usually needed for butterfly pics, and not for most flowers, either. Usually, a 0.25x or so magnification is sufficient for butterflies - what you really need is working distance, and the 9.5" with the 180L often isn't enough. At 4-5 feet distance, you'll get higher mag with the 300/4L IS (0.24x maximum magnification, great for flowers and butterflies).

With all due respect - I believe the minimum focussing distance on the 180 is about 18 inches - and that is for 1:1 magnification

Yes, but also with all due respect, I didn't state the minimum focus distance is 9.5", I stated that is the minimum working distance. MFD is measured from the sensor, ignoring the physical length of the lens. Working distance is measured from the front element - in my experience, butterflies don't get startled and fly away because the sensor is 18" away, they fly off because the business end of the lens is even closer...

But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...

 

[Loswr]

But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...

True - not claiming it's a macro lens. It comes down to whether or not you need 1:1 magnification for your subjects, and if, at 1:1, you can get sufficient DoF (do butterflies sit still for focus stacking?).

 

[briansquibb]

But that is 1:1 magnification not the 0.25 you mention ...

True - not claiming it's a macro lens. It comes down to whether or not you need 1:1 magnification for your subjects, and if, at 1:1, you can get sufficient DoF (do butterflies sit still for focus stacking?).

I take butterflies from about 3ft away on the 180, more on the 1D4.

There is little in it between the 300 and the 180 - except of course the 180 will get a lot closer if needed and still gives good resolution at f/22

 

[bvincents]

Dear all,

Thank you very much for all the posts, I'm very happy about that!

To answer some of the questions:
I'd mainly use the macro lens outside, and I'm not really a tripod fan to be honest. (Maybe it's because I do not really own a good one - probably should pick one up one day...)

Obviously working distance is not an issue when shooting flowers - I get that.
However, I do really want to get some nice butterfly photos. I tried that a year or so ago with a 450D and the Sigma 70-300mm - overall it was a pain.
But here's my problem: Either I go for the 100mm which is faster and has IS (I like both things there!) or I go for the 180mm granting me more working distance, however I'd have to deal with slower AF.
Perhaps the 100mm and a 1.4x or even 2x extender would fulfill my needs?
Good thing would be that I could also use that extender on the 70-200mm (which is f/2.8L IS II, to answer another question) which would at least bridge and let me find out if I'm really into bird photography or if I just want to do it because I can not do it at this point. And if I'm really into it, I'll have to save for a 400mm I guess.

So what's your thought on the extender thing? I know image quality would suffer a bit, but in the end I prefer a picture that suffered a bit to a picture that's not there at all.

And background blur is not the most important thing to me. Since higher background blur does also mean I have to set a higher aperture (number that is, of course the aperture itself has to be decreased) in order to get everything as sharp as I want, it's probably not the best idea. Especially not when the one with the higher background blur has no IS. :-\

Let's see what you guys think about it, I really appreciate every single feedback you guys can give me.

Thanks a lot in advance.

n0iZe

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)
Flowers; go for the 100mm
Butterfly's: go for the 180 ( they tend to fly away when you get to close )
The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.
Do butterflies sit still for autofocus? No but if you get up early in the morning before they get heated by the sun,
then they will sit still. Another trick is to catch one and put it in the refrigiator for a while.
Oh by the way, checkout this guy's pictures in his gallery
http://www.juzaphoto.com/index2.php?l=en&pg=home
Happy shooting
Bjarne Vincents

 

[Loswr]

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)

The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.

The 100L Macro isn't compatible with the Canon extenders, either. Only primes of 135mm and longer.

The MP-E 65mm is a great lens (one of my favorites!), but it's definitely not a casual-use macro lens. I agree that a macro flash is a big help - I have the MT24-EX (although I have done flower shots with lighting from a handheld LED flashlight).

 

[wickidwombat]

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)

The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.

The 100L Macro isn't compatible with the Canon extenders, either. Only primes of 135mm and longer.

The MP-E 65mm is a great lens (one of my favorites!), but it's definitely not a casual-use macro lens. I agree that a macro flash is a big help - I have the MT24-EX (although I have done flower shots with lighting from a handheld LED flashlight).

the 100L is brilliant with the kenko extender though

 

[Razor2012]

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)

The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.

The 100L Macro isn't compatible with the Canon extenders, either. Only primes of 135mm and longer.

The MP-E 65mm is a great lens (one of my favorites!), but it's definitely not a casual-use macro lens. I agree that a macro flash is a big help - I have the MT24-EX (although I have done flower shots with lighting from a handheld LED flashlight).

the 100L is brilliant with the kenko extender though

What kind of magnification do you get with the Kenko's again?

 

[n0iZe]

The old version of the 100mm is NOT compatible with the 1.4 x and 2x extenders.!! (i dont know about the new ones)
Flowers; go for the 100mm
Butterfly's: go for the 180 ( they tend to fly away when you get to close )
The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro will give you 5 x magnification, you will need to get VERY close and you will
also need a ringflash.
Do butterflies sit still for autofocus? No but if you get up early in the morning before they get heated by the sun,
then they will sit still. Another trick is to catch one and put it in the refrigiator for a while.
Oh by the way, checkout this guy's pictures in his gallery
http://www.juzaphoto.com/index2.php?l=en&pg=home
Happy shooting
Bjarne Vincents

Thanks a lot for the advice, but I won't be putting butterflies into my refrigerator. Somehow it reminds me of this:

The hint for getting up early is greatly appreciated, I'll try that.

 

[IIIHobbs]

Reading around the forum this morning, I noticed this post from Marsu42:

Unless you need to shoot at 1:1 a lot (sounds like you don't), I'd get an extension tube and start looking at another lens. The 85/1.8 makes a great portrait lens on FF. Shooting small objects like flowers isn't "macro" in the technical sense, and any decent zoom with tubes or a tc should do just fine. As you know from your 60mm ef-s lens, real macro means that you nearly hit the object with your lens and the usable aperture goes down the drain, making either a tripod or high iso or larger apertures necessary. Good, professional macro shots are a big hassle, so for nice pictures of non-microscopic flowers you won't need a real macro lens.

 

[Marsu42]

I won't be putting butterflies into my refrigerator. Somehow it reminds me of this

You are not far from the truth - though discussing animal rights is bordering on political, a no-go for tech geek forums: Next to the mentioned freezing and killing + glueing it seems binding down with rubber straps and anesthetizing are popular non-lethal ways to get professional shots in proper lighting :-(

Reading around the forum this morning, I noticed this post from Marsu42:

People here are actually reading older posts - amazing! ... in this thread, the op said himself that the was ok with using a standard zoom for flower shots, so the added flexibility outweights the magnification advantage of real macro lenses.

 

[gary]

Take the 100L macro and you will not have any regrets, a bit of a plastic feel but IQ is superb and the IS makes it good to go

 

[archangelrichard]

Ok

you want to work without a tripod

The 180 weighs 1090 grams (2 1/2 POUNDS) the 100 weighs 584 grams (1 1/4 POUNDS) (the IS version is 2 oz more). The 180 is designed to work with a tripod, has a tripod mount

Yes you can use extension tubes; (which have no glass and do not add distortion) or tele-extenders (though not recommended for shorter lenses than 135 mm many people who have done this are pleased wit the results, remember I said officially not recommended

In other words if you want a carry around lens get the 100, not the 180; if you are shooting subjects that do not move (and remember that plants move in the wind) - the 180 may be a better choice (and do remember that the longer a lens is the less depth of field you get at the same aperture setting)

Also note that if you are an available light shooter the difference in F stop can be significant - which brings o mind an alternative you might consider: the 85 F 1.8 lenses from various manufacturers *which, with a extension tube becomes a macro lens)

 

[n0iZe]

Dear all,

Thank you very much for all your tips, opinions and discussion.

I made my decision and picked up a 100mm f/2.8L IS USM at my local Canon Pro store.
Also I got me a 1.4x Extender III to make that 70-200 lens a bit longer.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Marsu42]

I made my decision and picked up a 100mm f/2.8L IS USM at my local Canon Pro store. Also I got me a 1.4x Extender III to make that 70-200 lens a bit longer.

Good time to get them with the current rebates - but still enough time to get doubts because the Kenko 1.4x tc is up to par with the Canon concerning iq & fits the 100L, too :->

 

[n0iZe]

I made my decision and picked up a 100mm f/2.8L IS USM at my local Canon Pro store. Also I got me a 1.4x Extender III to make that 70-200 lens a bit longer.

Good time to get them with the current rebates - but still enough time to get doubts because the Kenko 1.4x tc is up to par with the Canon concerning iq & fits the 100L, too :->

There will always be space for doubts. Everything has it's good and it's bad part, so I'll now just have to live with my decision. If I really need the 1.4x Extender on the 100L as well I can still get me a Kenko one - and that combo is still cheaper than the 180L.