Mpe-65 or 100mm macro?

[Renboy]

Please help guys. I really cant make up my mind. I'm keen to do some really close macro stuff. I have played round with a nifty 50 rev onto my 300. had loads of fun, but very hard to use.
Now I know the mpe has no auto focus. not a big deal. but is it that much better then the 100 to warrant me forking out the extra cash?
Any words from people that have used both?

Thanks

[ChrisBlaze]

IMO the MPE-65 is too specialize for the everyday shooter. I say get the 100mm Macro and some Kenko tubes.

[Canon Bob]

Firstly, I don't think the MP-E is an ideal starter lens for macro....but maybe your inverted 50 has got you past that phase.

The important difference to appreciate is that, in their unadulterated forms (no tubes etc), the 100 will stop at 1:1 whereas the MP-E starts at 1:1.
Effectively this means that you cannot shoot anything larger than your sensor.....butterflies, dragons etc are out for the MP-E. The 100 only gets to 1:1 at MFD and is very usable at lower mags for larger bugs and other subjects.

The difference in their usage is probably as far removed as your 300mm is from your 50mm (as individual lenses)

Bob

[GerBee]

Exactly what I'd have said too ... :)

IMO the MPE-65 is too specialize for the everyday shooter. I say get the 100mm Macro and some Kenko tubes.

[WMS]

Start with the Canon ef 100 f2.8 macro and read/post to the macro forum. Next learn woth the 100macro and a set of tubes, then move to the Mpe 65 if you want.

Wayne

[baybud]

the mpe is essentially just a lens and bellows all tarted up to look something like an ef lens.

It was the first macro lens i ever bought and has served me well these past four years.
I would say get it!
If you have a passion for macro just jump in and get the bigun, its not a hard lens to use, it just needs understanding, once you have that the lens is actually pretty much shoot and go.

I would recommend one of the macro flash units, in fact i would go as far to say dont buy this without one of the macro flash units! Preferably the mt 24ex.

Depending on what you shoot i would also recommend a decent tripod setup.

This is a difficult point though because frankly the tolerances of the lens- how it connects to the camera-how the camera connects to the tripod head- how that connects to the tripod etc are too great to really provide decent support when using the lens at 5x mag.

macro focusing rails are another problem, i haven't had one yet precise enough, or rigid enough to use with this lens at its max mag, perhaps the new really right stuff one might be better?

But anyway this is context dependent, if you find yourself shooting insects/arachnids etc you will almost certainly find handholding with the mt24ex more than adequate to provide very sharp punchy photos.

@5x mag tracking a mite or other small insect is very much like tracking a cheetah in full sprint with one of canons super teles! Very strange feeling.

A tip which might help, if you do choose the mpe.

When i shoot i generally use my left hand to hold the ring of the mt24ex at the front of the lens, with my fingers i then create a mini tripod on the surface that im shooting, this allows me to very precisely adjust my up and down movements for focusing and subject composition.

Hope you come to the decision thats right for you.

Don't be putt off by the mpe though, yes in many ways it is hard to use, but once you get to grips with it you will not find a more rewarding lens to use.

[Choderboy]

I can give you some info , you'll have to research the rest :)

http://johnbdigital.com/macro/lens_compare/macro_variations.php

The pic top right shows that a full set of kenko extension tubes achieves about 2:1 magnification on the canon 100 macro.
So it doubles the 1:1 standard max of the 100 macro - easy enough to understand.
I wonder what the minimum focus will achieve though (as this will determine the range you can use it)
I suspect at 2:1 the image quality may be similar to an MPE 65 at 2:1.
The problem is , when you "focus out" ie reduce magnification to say 1:1 , you have still got the full 68mm tubes which does reduce the light so you'll be at a disadvantage compared to using an MPE at 1:1.
You'll still be restricted to 2X mag with that setup too.

So what do you want to shoot? What's really small?

[baybud]

there really are alot of differences compared to the mpe and anothe rlens with tubes.
For a start and perhaps the most important one, the mpe is specially corrected for this kind of work - sharpness across the frame, lack of CA, no vignetting (that i have ever seen)

All these little things add up to really give a measurable difference in quality.

The best thing though is that you are able to adjust your magnification on the fly, if you have time to fart around changing tubes then your ok, but often with insects you have maybe half a second if your lucky on some shots.

Another point perhas worth considering. By the time you have bought enough extention tubes + a decent lens able to work well with them, you are probably close if not exceeding the price of the mpe.

Edit.
Another observation i have with Tubes as opposed to the mpe, sometimes the extention tubes have a shiny surface inside which when photographing very light subjects can create significant halo/flare generally just loss of IQ.

I own a kenko set and never use them, GD horrible things.

[John_B]

Renboy,
I have both the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 and the 100mm f/2.8 and if I could only have one (hope that don't happen soon) I would take my 100mm f/2.8.

The 100mm is a standard 1:1 (life size) macro lens and its also a great 100mm telephoto lens. The 65mm is a 1:1 - 5:1 (5 x life size) and give much less working room between lens and subject, which makes lighting harder and subjects more likely to run from it. But yet displays things our naked eyes might not see :)

So if you truly want to shoot macro of more then 2:1 my suggestion is to then get the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 if not get the 100mm f/2.8 lens

You can see the difference here on my Macro Variations page (http://johnbdigital.com/macro/lens_compare/macro_variations.php) most of them were taken with a 5D which is what macro measurements are based on (ex. 1:1 a 35mm wide subject is 35mm wide on the sensor/film) the same page Choderboy recommended :lol:

[EcoRick]

I purchased the 100mm for two reasons. One was the macro feature, the other was to have a fast prime. Reviewing your lenses, the 100mm would compliment your current lenses and I'm sure you'll find other uses for it. Unless you're big on macro, I'd get the 100mm.