Zhong Yi Optics officially announces the Mitakon 200mm F/4 APO Macro Lens

[David - Sydney]

Arguments like this just don't follow - macro shooting, just like any other photography, can benefit from a range of different focal lengths depending on the subject and circumstances. 100 mm is certainly not "just as useful" if you need to shoot from further away, for whatever reason. Also, a longer lens can result in more background blur at the same depth of field. Manual focus is often used both hand-held and on a tripod, and even to pre-focus when using a rail. IS and AF are both useful, and both can be switched off when you don't want them - but can't be switched on if you don't have them.

I'm struggling to understand where you would use manual focus at a long focal length for macro work.

Background blur is normally important for portrait work in my experience and 200mm would generally be considered a long focal length for portraits.
I have done some f2.8 macro shots of underwater subjects but the keeper rate is low even with OIS/AF but satisfying when it works.
Normally, I would be working at f9 to f18 when using my EF100mm (with OIS/ centre point AF) handheld.

For tripod work, the rail provides moves the depth of field in steps over the subject so no issues with manual focus but does a longer focal length assist in this case? The manual focus MP-E 65mm f/2.8 is perfect for tripod work but would you use it handheld?

 

[koenkooi]

I'm struggling to understand where you would use manual focus at a long focal length for macro work. [...]

For me, I use manual focus when autofocus will be actively sabotaging a shot For some reason Canon AF will not track dragonfly eyes when I tap to put a focus point on them. 9 times out of 10, it will wander off into the background. So for fairly static shots using tripod, like dawn shots of stationary dragonflies, I use MF. With the 5x and 20x zoom options on the LCD I can finetune the focus.

RP + 180L:


(click for a version than isn't turned into mud by this forums downscaling)

This one is handheld, but also MF, RP + 180L:

 

[David - Sydney]

For me, I use manual focus when autofocus will be actively sabotaging a shot For some reason Canon AF will not track dragonfly eyes when I tap to put a focus point on them. 9 times out of 10, it will wander off into the background. So for fairly static shots using tripod, like dawn shots of stationary dragonflies, I use MF. With the 5x and 20x zoom options on the LCD I can finetune the focus.

RP + 180L:
(click for a version than isn't turned into mud by this forums downscaling)
This one is handheld, but also MF, RP + 180L:

Kudos for the handheld shot!
The R5's eye-AF also is underwhelming for underwater critters so for macro I tend to use center point AF and then crop for composition later. The keeper rate is much higher then.... Weedy Seadragon

 

[Click]

Great shot, David.

 

[Click]

RP + 180L:


(click for a version than isn't turned into mud by this forums downscaling)

This one is handheld, but also MF, RP + 180L:

I really like your last shot. Nicely done.

 

[sanj]

I'm struggling to understand where you would use manual focus at a long focal length for macro work.

Background blur is normally important for portrait work in my experience and 200mm would generally be considered a long focal length for portraits.
I have done some f2.8 macro shots of underwater subjects but the keeper rate is low even with OIS/AF but satisfying when it works.
Normally, I would be working at f9 to f18 when using my EF100mm (with OIS/ centre point AF) handheld.

For tripod work, the rail provides moves the depth of field in steps over the subject so no issues with manual focus but does a longer focal length assist in this case? The manual focus MP-E 65mm f/2.8 is perfect for tripod work but would you use it handheld?

I have found that I get exact results when I zoom in and set the focus manually when doing macro work. Auto focus many times does not focus on exactly where I want it.

 

[David - Sydney]

I have found that I get exact results when I zoom in and set the focus manually when doing macro work. Auto focus many times does not focus on exactly where I want it.

You are a better shooter than me (better eyesight/steady hands)! IBIS isn't as useful at longer focal lengths for manual lens and not at all if AF lenses have the AF turned off.

 

[scyrene]

I don't think I could ever give up automatic focus bracketing! But if you're a real/serious macro photographer, then you probably never touch such a novice feature. LOL

I should probably look into that.

 

[scyrene]

"Longer" macro lenses can be very useful for insects. But without AF and OIS, I can only imagine a static use for a 200mm macro. A very limited use, indeed!

They're great for flowers fwiw.

 

[scyrene]

I'm struggling to understand where you would use manual focus at a long focal length for macro work.

Background blur is normally important for portrait work in my experience and 200mm would generally be considered a long focal length for portraits.
I have done some f2.8 macro shots of underwater subjects but the keeper rate is low even with OIS/AF but satisfying when it works.
Normally, I would be working at f9 to f18 when using my EF100mm (with OIS/ centre point AF) handheld.

For tripod work, the rail provides moves the depth of field in steps over the subject so no issues with manual focus but does a longer focal length assist in this case? The manual focus MP-E 65mm f/2.8 is perfect for tripod work but would you use it handheld?

I have used a 180mm macro lens for indoor food/still life work and it would generally be MF on a tripod, allowing for longer exposures in lower light. Niche but can produce nicer backgrounds than a 100mm.

Edit: I do have a focus rail but it's more involved and for single shots (as opposed to stacks) unnecessary imo. I have also used the MP-E handheld a great deal over the years, mirrorless + IBIS makes using that lens a bit more flexible.

 

[scyrene]

I seem to be in a minority still rocking the Sigma 180 OS macro on the RF system. It's a bit big for casual use but produces wonderful images - although the AF and IS aren't terribly reliable. When it works it's worth the hassle.

 

[Click]

Lovely shot. Nicely done, scyrene.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I seem to be in a minority still rocking the Sigma 180 OS macro on the RF system.

I wanted it but it was impossible to find.
It must have already been discontinued.
Sigma could not have made very many since it is also tough to find used.

 

[scyrene]

I wanted it but it was impossible to find.
It must have already been discontinued.
Sigma could not have made very many since it is also tough to find used.

Yes I think it was discontinued, a pity. I can't imagine they sold very many, so the used market is probably small.

 

[chrysoberyl]

AF on my Sigma 180 2.8 is much better on the R6 than the 5D IV.