Which Macro lens?
Discussion
I've got the 100mm f2.8 - very nice lens!
The 180mm is apparently a very nice lens too (and on my list of future purchases
), but from what I've read, it loses out to the 100mm in focus speed, weight and size, plus the smaller max aperture. The 100mm also doubles as a very effective portrait lens too.
On the plus side though, I've read that it is slightly sharper (although the 100mm is plenty good enough in this respect), better built (it's an "L" series lens), and the extra focal length will enable you to shoot from further away, which will also help to isolate the subject from the background.
Tamron seem to do very well in macro lens reviews, so it may be worth checking their lenses out too.
The 180mm is apparently a very nice lens too (and on my list of future purchases
), but from what I've read, it loses out to the 100mm in focus speed, weight and size, plus the smaller max aperture. The 100mm also doubles as a very effective portrait lens too. On the plus side though, I've read that it is slightly sharper (although the 100mm is plenty good enough in this respect), better built (it's an "L" series lens), and the extra focal length will enable you to shoot from further away, which will also help to isolate the subject from the background.
Tamron seem to do very well in macro lens reviews, so it may be worth checking their lenses out too.
ehasler said:
and the extra focal length will enable you to shoot from further away, which will also help to isolate the subject from the background.
Maybe correct, but maybe not... Don't forget that the formula for depth of field contains three variables - focal length, distance to subject, and aperture. So although the 180mm has a longer focal length, it loses out on the other two (assuming they are both 1:1), so in fact you may be better able to isolate the background with the 100mm
ehasler said:
Tamron seem to do very well in macro lens reviews, so it may be worth checking their lenses out too.
Ed advises well, go for a Tamron (90mm) unless you don't mind about price too much.
It's true that longer macro lenses allow you to keep further away from the subject - but think about camera-shake at such extreme magnification.
That's a hell of a lot of money for the ability to take close-ups. I have a Micro Nikkor f2.8 60mm (equiv to 90mm) and it's all I need.
NB As magnification heads towards 1:1, DOF disappears to virtually zero, so I wouldn't worry too much about isolating the background: it won't be there!
That's a hell of a lot of money for the ability to take close-ups. I have a Micro Nikkor f2.8 60mm (equiv to 90mm) and it's all I need.
NB As magnification heads towards 1:1, DOF disappears to virtually zero, so I wouldn't worry too much about isolating the background: it won't be there!
V6GTO said:
The 100mm f2.8 manages 1:1 at about 310mm from lens to subject. The 180mm f3.5 goes to 1:2!
I think that's half actual size. 2:1 would be double.
Going back to my 35mm roots, a lens quoted as 1:1 could record an image - let's say a 1p coin - life size on the negative. If you put that lens on a smaller-chip DSLR you get higher magnification due to the crop, say 1.33:1. My experiments with the Micro Nikkor seem to bear that out.
If you need any more than that you probably need a microscope!
simpo two said:
Going back to my 35mm roots, a lens quoted as 1:1 could record an image - let's say a 1p coin - life size on the negative. If you put that lens on a smaller-chip DSLR you get higher magnification due to the crop, say 1.33:1. My experiments with the Micro Nikkor seem to bear that out.
I would disagree - the crop factor is exactly that, a crop of the negative. So if the lens threw life size on 35mm, it will still throw life size on the part of the 35mm that is now occupied by the sensor, we are just recordind a smaller portion of it than before.
Bee_Jay said:
I would disagree - the crop factor is exactly that, a crop of the negative. So if the lens threw life size on 35mm, it will still throw life size on the part of the 35mm that is now occupied by the sensor, we are just recordind a smaller portion of it than before.
You're right, it's an illusion caused by small chip size. But the end efffect is that of greater magnification. Just as the focal length of a lens doesn't change when you stick it on a DSLR, but the result appears different. With a macro lens the 1p coin will fill more of the viewfinder on a D70, 300D etc, than when on a 35mm camera.
luca brazzi said:
Show us some pictures with the macro lenses please 
LB
Shots taken with the Canon 180mm f3.5L Macro are here.
www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_180_35_macro_u
The Canon 100mm f2.8 shots are here.
www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100_28_macro_u
Martin.
murph7355 said:
Does anyone have some real world 1:1 shots.
I always have difficulty visualising what this means (will search the web, but people here usually have a good collection).
These were taken at about 1:1 with a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, on a 1D mkII
I have loads more here
>> Edited by srider on Sunday 6th February 11:02
srider said:
These were taken at about 1:1 with a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, on a 1D mkII
And this is where my head loses it.
I thought 1:1 was "lifesize".
They're big mf bugs if that's lifesize! (And I wouldn't want to live where you do).
I'm probably missing something on macro terminology here and guess it must mean something to do with squashing a fly onto a 35mm frame?
but 
murph7355 said:
And this is where my head loses it.
I thought 1:1 was "lifesize"... I'm probably missing something on macro terminology here and guess it must mean something to do with squashing a fly onto a 35mm frame?
'Lifesize' means 'Lifesize on the sensor'. Obviously you can blow up an image as big as you like, but that's nothing to do with the lens.
Another example: you don't need a bigger camera to make a 10"x8" print!!!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff