Comparing Macro Lenses

[ppardue]

:roll: :?: I purchased my digital Rebel in Ocotober of 2003. When I purchased it I got the EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, which isn't a bad lense but the depth of field is really tight (guesswork on the terms).

Can anyone give me images from either the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM or 17 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM and give a verbal comparison or opionion of these.

I really enjoy macro photography but need justifcation for the purchase of a new lense. Since it is a small investment to purchase them any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks for your assistance. P

[/b]

[Jon]

DOF isn't going to differ markedly for the same magnification and f/stop with any of the three. What will change is the "working distance" between the front lens element and the subject. I'm presuming we're talking "macro" range (1:5 and closer). Magnification is m=s1/s0=is/os where s0 is subject distance (from nodal point of the lens) and s1 is image distance (again from nodal point); os is object size, and is is image size. What you will "gain" IIRC is minimum aperture, which can help DOF, and minimum absolute aperture opening, which will help reduce diffraction effects. Given that at 1:2 magnification and f/22, you've got about 2 mm DOF, and to double this you'd have to go to f/45, if the lens has it. Macro work's a bear.

[boone]

There were some cool photos of wind scorpions in the July National Geographic, taken with the Canon 50mm macro. I thought the DOF was pretty good, though he's stopped down to f/22.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature5/zoom1.html

Click the images on the left, and the photo details are at the bottom of each picture.

I just recently got the EF 100mm macro, and I'm still trying to learn how to use it. It's my first macro, so I can't offer a comparison. It's pretty sharp but I've had difficulty handholding it and getting good shots. I guess I still need to get used to the weight...some bugs don't wait around for me to setup the tripod.

photo.net reviews of the 100mm and 180mm macros:
http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/100
http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/180-macro

I'd say go for the 100mm since it's much less than the 180mm and you get the 1.6 crop factor on the Rebel anyway.

[AzzKicker]

Take a look at this Gallery for 100mm macro pics. She does use a Ring FLash though on some pics

http://www.broadbandreports.com/pics/dimaging/191386

[SKR1]

the more pratical of lens is EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

The 180 mm is pratical for some photography of insects but is more difficult to use.

A+

SKR

[JZaun]

My vote is for the canon 100mm macro. The canon50mm is not a 1:1 unless you have an adapter and you have to be too close. I use my 100mm macro for macro and close up pics,, check the bugs and flowers on my site. All taken with this lens.

Sorry, most Dragon flys were with the 100-400mm but all BF's and bees were withthe 100mm


JZ

[ssim]

Here are a couple of examples of my 100 Macro. It is a great lens.

This one taken with the 10D and was one of my first test shots with this lens.
http://www.pbase.com/image/21189705.jpg

This one taken with the 1D MKII
http://www.pbase.com/image/32636697.jpg

Now just for good measure. It is possible to do similar stuff with the 100-400 lens

http://www.pbase.com/image/33129040.jpg

[Shakespeare]

Take a look at this Gallery for 100mm macro pics. She does use a Ring FLash though on some pics

http://www.broadbandreports.com/pics/dimaging/191386
_________________


Another newbie question...on the link above she sometimes mentions that she's using a 1.4TC,

http://www.broadbandreports.com/showpic/dimaging?lid=77156&1=1&1=1

but the only one I know about (the one I asked about yesterday for the 70-200 f/4L) doesn't fit on the 100mm.

So which TC was she talking about?

[Loekito]

TC = Tele Converter

meaning, to get more magnification, since your 100mm becomes 140mm using 1.4x TC.

regards,

Loekito

[Jon]

Take a look at this Gallery for 100mm macro pics. She does use a Ring FLash though on some pics

http://www.broadbandreports.com/pics/dimaging/191386
_________________


Another newbie question...on the link above she sometimes mentions that she's using a 1.4TC,

http://www.broadbandreports.com/showpic/dimaging?lid=77156&1=1&1=1

but the only one I know about (the one I asked about yesterday for the 70-200 f/4L) doesn't fit on the 100mm.

So which TC was she talking about?

Maybe a Sigma or Tamron, or . . . Not everyone (Oh, the horror!) uses only Canon optics.

[Shakespeare]

So Canon doesn't make a TC for the 100mm?

S

[Jon]

Nope. Just the one 1.4x and one 2x, neither of which are intended to work on the 100 macro. They have protruding front elements which may not clear the rear elements or rear aperture on the shorter lenses.

[Shakespeare]

Anyone ever use the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo manual focus?

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&mode lid=7325

[Jon]

Anyone ever use the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo manual focus?

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&mode lid=7325

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39811

[Loekito]

Yes the TC cannot work for EF 100mm Macro USM.

The figure that I mentioned on my previous post doesn't refer to the EF 100mm lens, it's only a figure to describe the 1.4x TC effect.

regards,

Loekito

[rraman]

How do Canon 50mm/100mm perform for normal photography, e.g. when they are used to shoot people or landscape instead of macro?

[Jmurman]

Nope. Just the one 1.4x and one 2x, neither of which are intended to work on the 100 macro. They have protruding front elements which may not clear the rear elements or rear aperture on the shorter lenses.

Will a Extension tube work with this lens?

[Jon]

Oh, yeah. Extension tubes are just hollow pass-throughs, so nothing to bump into either on the lens or the camera body. You'd need to find an EF-S extension tube for an EF-S lens, but the regular EF extension tubes will work on any EF lens. All they do is displace the lens X mm. forward. Note: the Life-Size Converter Canon sells is strictly for the 50 mm macro; it has some optics as well as extension.

[Scottes]

How do Canon 50mm/100mm perform for normal photography, e.g. when they are used to shoot people or landscape instead of macro?

They're excellent. Macro lenses are usually quite high quality. Canon's definitely are.

I use my Sigma 105mm Macro for all sorts of stuff - as long as I don't need fast AF it's wonderful. And it's f/2.8 and much smaller than my 70-200 f/2.8.

[Loekito]

How do Canon 50mm/100mm perform for normal photography, e.g. when they are used to shoot people or landscape instead of macro?

I own the 100mm, so I know that it's also a very good portrait lens, since it's very sharp (one of the sharpest non-"L" lenses) and provide very nice bokeh.

not sure for landscape, since mostly need the wide ones to do landscape photography?

regards,

Loekito