Anyone have much experience with Canon Macro Lenses?

Hi guys,

I'm about to purchase a Canon 28-135mmf/3.5-5.6 IS USM and I'm wondering how
this goes with Macro work? I'm not talking about zooming into a grain of
rice just two specific jobs I'm wanting to be able to do with it.

1) Photograph textures (so fairly close up but not to the point I can see
the atoms!)
2) Food Photography (I think I may need a macro for this?)

Eventually (next year) I was thinking of getting the Canon MP-E65mmf/2.8
1-5x Macro! I really want zoom capability on the macro as I want to shoot
everything from as far back as food photography right up to filling my CCD
with a grain of rice (which they say it can do @5x). I'm wondering if anyone
has had any experience with this product before?

For now I'm hoping that the 28-135 will do both adequately, any comments on
these products would be most welcome. Thank you all! Cheers.

Regards,
Nick.

 

The MP-E 65 is an amazing macro lens. Check out Frank Phillips' bug
gallery here:

http://www.frankphillips.com/

He uses the MP-E pretty much exclusively (he has a couple of Sigma macro
lenses but from what I gather he doesn't like them much.) This is one of
my favorites:

http://www.frankphillips.com/macro/bug87_std.jpg

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Canon 10D:
http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________

 

Yeah i already have the 500D lens but i was really wanting something with
more grunt to it!

 

WOW!! That is a cool site. Very nice images. Cheers!

 

Right. The longer the lens, the higher the magnification you get. I've had
great results with the 250D in 58mm. In 72mm it's getting a tad pricey
though. (I'd go for the 250D: with the zoom, you can zoom to change the
magnification, backing out for a wider view.)

In 72mm, it may be well over $100. Still, it's a lot easier to carry in the
field than a macro lens.

Check out the following page:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

First off - the 65mm 5x macro is not a zoom - it is a 65mm lens. You might
be referring to the size enlargement you can make with it, and that is 1.5x
up to 5x. This is not zooming. I'm not sure if there is a one word tag for
it, but zooming is changing the actual focal length of the lens, while
changing the enlargement is just a matter of moving the lens further away
from the sensor.
For the actual macro need - it would help to know what you are going to
be shooting. If you are doing plates of food on a table (magazine style food
shots) you won't need a macro lens. If you want to fill the frame with one
meat ball - you'll need to go macro.
With textures it is the same - I used to do a lot of them when I had a
50mm macro. They tended to be small stuff like window screening and cloth
etc. For larger textures like brick walls etc I just used my walkabout zoom.
The simplest way to go macro with a lens as big (72mm) as the 28-135,
would be with extension tubes. The IS of the lens will be a big help when it
comes to holding it all steady. Since you will be adding to the length of
the system the IS might work better than using a tripod. Even a good tripod
will have a certain amount of "shake" as there is no tripod mount on that
lens or on any extension tubes to fit it. The system will be front heavy.
Consequently you'll want to keep the shutter speed high.
Two element close up lenses are available but the only ones to fit that
lens are the Canon models and they are expensive. They are also not very
storng compared to what you can get with a set of extension tubes - but a
lot depends on how much you actually need.
The other thing would be to get a dedicated macro lens like the Canon
100mm f2.8. But I would assume since you are thinking of getting the 65mm
that you would not want to spend a lot of money on another macro - although
the ranges don't actually overlap - the 100mm only goes up to 1:1.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.

 

Thanks for the heads up on Phillips' bug photo gallery.
Those are the best insect macros that I have ever seen.
Incredible detail and surprisingly good DOF for such close up shots.
Bob Williams

 

If you want a really good macro, you don't want a zoom. I know of no
professional using a zoom for macro work. However must anyone doing macro
work will suggest a longish focal length lens in the 100-200mm range. Any
true macro will allow you to photograph something the size of the sensor and
fill the image. That's called 1:1.

The longer lens will allow you to still be a respectable distance away
from the subject and still focus that close. With that 65 mm lens you will
be about four or five inches away to produce a life size image. With a 200
mm that will be about 16 inches.

True macros tend to have flat fields, that is they can focus on
something totally flat like a newspaper and the edges and the center will
all be in focus and all the edges will be straight. Most other lenses
focusing that close would tend to offer you the choice of focusing on the
center or edges, but not both. True macros also tend to be very sharp
lenses, and very expensive lenses.

If you don't need the 1:1 range and can make due with something less, I
suggest trying some inexpensive close up "filters" for your current lens.
The good ones (try Nikon) do a good job and many people never need more.
The cost is far less than a real micro lens.

 

UGH! I would rather use extension tubes. The depth of field is better
using extension tubes rather than diopters. Even the best two element
dioters degrade image quality. Of course the best idea is to use a real
macro lens (which is a prime lens, and not a macro zoom), and extension
tubes when the need arises.

 

For a given lens and a given magnification, extension tubes will give more
working distance than diopters. Extension tubes will also give you
more depth of field for the same marked aperture on the lens
(the reason for this is that extension tubes cut down on the light,
making the effective aperture even smaller). A reversed wide angle lens
will give you more working distance than the same lens on extension
tubes for the same magnification.

 

Most macro zooms are only, as you found out, close focusing lenses. The only
real macro zoom was made in the 70's by Vivitar you could go to half life size
at 180mm. I have one used mostly for medical photography, a true beast of a
lens, on my Canon F1 with a motor and a Metz 45CT1 flash I'm looking at 7 lbs.
Currently Canon makes 3 true macros, a 50mm, 100mm, and 200mm, nothing in zoom
I'm afraid. All are excellent lenses.

Tom