Beginner macro questions

[UKBob]

www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=48&sort=7&cat=2&page=2

Firstly, does anyone have the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
Its expensive but seems to be pretty one of canon's most highly rated lenses.

How can one use a macro lens for sports photography My only expereicene shooting macro was playing around with my old canon G5 in macro mode, wasnt designed to focus properly on subjects more than a few feet away.

I assume there is no zoom, and it acts as a 180mm prime. How does this come into play when you're shooting still life on a tripod... one just moves the tripod back and forth (or the subject) to get the ideal crop/composition?

And what does 1x actually mean? And how close can you be/do you have to be to get this magnification.

If anyone has pics which might give me an indication of how much "zooming in ability" the lens might have, Id love to see em!

I prefer the idea of being able to take macro photos from afar, not just so that I dont scare the subjects away, but also so that I dont get in the way of my lights when shooting stock so this lens seems like my best option.

Not sure if the reviews answer my questions, going to try and read them today

Has anyone tried the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5 x Macro?

[GetCarter]

I have 105 nikon macro.

1:1 means if you are looking down the lens at a fly, the image on the CCD will be the same size as the fly.

Because it is 105mm it also acts as a medium telephoto... hence useful for motorsport.

edited to add this drop of water was about 2 mm diameter and taken at 1:1 with the 105 from about 12 cm. www.stevecarter.com/macro/drop2.jpg

The bitch with these things is that dof is PAPER THIN www.stevecarter.com/macro/eyes.jpg

Steve

Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 23 August 11:39

[poah]

you can use macro lenses normally and they are usually of very high quality optics. they are also normally prime lenses for 1:1 ratio. the mpe is a specialised lens and probably not worth it. the efs 60mm macro is a very very good lens (260) as is the 100mm macro (370). the 180mm macro (1000) is not worth the money for normal use bob although it does mean you can be further away from the subject. I've had no problems photographing insects etc with the 100mm macro

[Gemm]

UKBob said:

How can one use a macro lens for sports photography My only expereicene shooting macro was playing around with my old canon G5 in macro mode, wasnt designed to focus properly on subjects more than a few feet away.

Just use it like a normal prime lens. But the AF may be slightly slower.

UKBob said:

I assume there is no zoom, and it acts as a 180mm prime. How does this come into play when you're shooting still life on a tripod... one just moves the tripod back and forth (or the subject) to get the ideal crop/composition?

Exactly.

UKBob said:

And what does 1x actually mean? And how close can you be/do you have to be to get this magnification.

It's the 1:1 magnification on the 35mm film, i.e. 20mm long object will show as 20mm on a film. I think the minimum focusing distance for that lens is 48cm (at 1:1 magnification), so it will be about 25cm (just guessing) from the tip of the lens to the subject.

UKBob said:

If anyone has pics which might give me an indication of how much "zooming in ability" the lens might have, Id love to see em!

I'll see if I can find some images in my portfolio, but it will be exactly the same as 50mm, 60mm, 100mm macro lenses.

UKBob said:

I prefer the idea of being able to take macro photos from afar, not just so that I dont scare the subjects away, but also so that I dont get in the way of my lights when shooting stock so this lens seems like my best option.

Yes, this is why it's the best lens for butterflies, etc. But it's bigger & heavier than 100mm, therefore there's a risk of camera shake, so handholding becomes slightly more tricky.

UKBob said:

Has anyone tried the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5 x Macro?

This is really a specialist lens. I've used one only once but it is quite amazing. You really have to be careful with the handling though (i.e. use of focusing rail etc)

Edited by Gemm on Wednesday 23 August 11:41

Edited by Gemm on Wednesday 23 August 11:44

[UKBob]

thanks for the replies guys.

So if the 1-1 zooming power is the same on all lenses, then the focal length in mm of each respective lens relates ONLY to how much further away one can get to maintain the same levels of magnification?

and... one cant physically move closer with a longer lens, to give a greater magnification than another 1-1 lens with a different focal length?

Sorry for sounding thick, just trying to get my head round things...

GetCarter... is your water droplet photo uncropped? And regardless of which lens I buy (ie 100mm, or 180mm) I'll be able to achieve the same level of magnification, right?

The 100mm lens is half the price of the 180mm L lens, how does quality compare? Would the 180mm lens give a greater DOF to work with?

One more question... how would the 100-400 compare? Since that lens is probably next on my "to buy" list, if it does a significantly better job than my 24-70 does for macro work, might it be worth considering that instead...?

[Gemm]

You can add extension tubes to move in even closer.

100mm Macro is considered to be a L lens without 'L' on it. Optical quality is fantastic even at f2.8.

Edited by Gemm on Wednesday 23 August 12:07

[GetCarter]

UKBob said:

GetCarter... is your water droplet photo uncropped?

No - that was about a 60% crop (ie I lost about 40%) - but only for compositional reasons - I just had too much leaf (I know you will say - you can't have too much leaf, so I've saved you the bother)

With a 180 you'll be able to stand further away (but dof will still be a very tricky)

Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 23 August 12:08

[UKBob]

Gemm said:

You can add extension tubes to move in even closer.

100mm Macro is considered to be a L lens without 'L' on it. Optical quality is fantastic even at f2.8.

From what I remember reading, the tubes are an empty space without a lens which goes between the camera and lens? How much are they, and what factors come into play when deciding between them vs or a 1.4 converter?

I'll take the PH advice and will most likely go for the 100mm then. At some point.

GetCarter said:

that was about a 60% crop (ie I lost about 40%) - but only for compositional reasons - I just had too much leaf (I know you will say - you can't have too much leaf, so I've saved you the bother)

With a 180 you'll be able to stand further away (but dof will still be a very tricky)

Cheers.

I read about the 1-5x macro lens once, and that a single grain of rice could fill the entire frame. I might rent one, one day... The possibilities for stock phtography are endless

From what I remember it was not an easy/nice lens to use, compared to most normal lenses. I'll have to try and find the article again as I cant remember much more about it.

[lotusfan]

just ordered a tamron 90mm F2.8 for the GF (birthday), having seen the results of others using it, looks very good!

[Rednut05]

I have a 20D and the Canon 100mm Macro lens which I have brought to try to get into Macro, who here uses a remote shutter release to stop camera shake when pressing the shutter button?

[Gemm]

Rednut05 said:

I have a 20D and the Canon 100mm Macro lens which I have brought to try to get into Macro, who here uses a remote shutter release to stop camera shake when pressing the shutter button?

Me, only if I was using a tripod, but I handhold my camera 99% of the time for macro shots.

[Gemm]

lotusfan said:

just ordered a tamron 90mm F2.8 for the GF (birthday), having seen the results of others using it, looks very good!

Tamron is a great lens too, but Canon wins in terms of handling (no push/pull mechanism for changing AF/MF, easier manual focusing) but I guess this is a personal preference. But the ultimate deciding factor to me is the full-time manual focus capability of the Canon.