Macro Questions

[AbPho]

I have been taking macro shots with a G9 for a while now. I am pleased with the results. Since I have moved up to a DSLR I want to know how the G9 stacks up. Does it take 1:1 macro shots? I want to be able to take similar pictures with the DSLR and then take it one step further. The 100mm MACRO by Canon seems to be very popular and cost effective.

I would like the MPE-65mm but that is just to much right now. And the twinlite flash on top of that. OUCH!!!!

Any pointers, general info, etc. would be really nice. Thanks.

[philthejuggler]

I'd start with Canon 100mm Macro or the Sigma 150mm Macro + a ring flash if you feel the need. The MPE is a very specialist lens and probably not recommended for a newbie to DSLR macro photography.

[bokchoi]

The 100mm macro is a great lens, and with a ring flash or twinlite is an excellent combination that will let you take great pictures and will let you get 1:1 magnification quite well. Note that moving up to a DSLR will introduce some new challenges to you in terms of Depth of Field, which you may suddenly find is very shallow on the larger DSLR sensor, and will require you play with your aperture settings accordingly.

As said, the 65mm MP-E is very specialized and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone new to macro photography, as its minimum magnification is 1:1, meaning you will not be able to focus on anything larger such as a dragonfly that may be bigger than the film plane, and will require you get extremely close to your subjects as well.

[AbPho]

Thanks for the info. Apparently the 100mm macro is so popular that the local photography shop has them on back order from Canon.

[macro junkie]

i prefer the canon 60mm macro lens..i didnt like the extra working distance which come with the 100mm.

[AbPho]

Here is the thing....

What is the difference between a EF 100mm macro and the MP-E 65mm macro lens? I can get the 100mm for $600 and the 65mm for $1000. If I go with the 100mm I can only do 1:1 macros. By the time I buy the tubes to get 2:1 I spent close to the cost of the 65mm.

So, my question is; why don't I just get the 65mm in the first place? I need some feedback here from the users of this gear.

[AbPho]

What exactly is image stacking? How is it done? What software etc.

I have an idea how. But not exactly. Different layers in Photoshop? Then erasing portions of the top layer to expose the bottom later?

[gjl711]

Here is the thing....

What is the difference between a EF 100mm macro and the MP-E 65mm macro lens? I can get the 100mm for $600 and the 65mm for $1000. If I go with the 100mm I can only do 1:1 macros. By the time I buy the tubes to get 2:1 I spent close to the cost of the 65mm.

So, my question is; why don't I just get the 65mm in the first place? I need some feedback here from the users of this gear. Tubes are only about $100 so it's not all that close, but, the 100 macro is a macro and is also a very fine medium tele and a f/2.8 low light lens as well. It works great as a macro lens, a portrait lens, a graduation lens, a flower lens, and many other types of photography.

The MPE-65 is a macro lens only.

What exactly is image stacking? How is it done? What software etc.There are several programs that do it, I use CombineZM. All your doing it taking several photos each focused on a slightly different plane then combining them into one photo with only the in focus areas showing.

It can also be done by hand in photoshop sy stacking then and errasing the parts that are out of focus to reveal the in focus areas.
The final product is the same.

[AbPho]

Thanks for the info gjl711. Given that I already have 3 different lenses (1 standard, 1 wide-tele zoom, 1 tele zoom) it makes sense not getting another jack of all trades lens and buying a dedicated macro lens. I will give it a little more time. But my mind has been made. Unless some pertinent information comes up to change my mind. :D

[philthejuggler]

Thanks for the info gjl711. Given that I already have 3 different lenses (1 standard, 1 wide-tele zoom, 1 tele zoom) it makes sense not getting another jack of all trades lens and buying a dedicated macro lens. I will give it a little more time. But my mind has been made. Unless some pertinent information comes up to change my mind. :D

Even if you want something that you dedicate for Macro use I think something like the 150mm or even 180mm Sigma could be a better choice. You may find lighting the subject challenging with the MPE-65 - the lens can be only centimetres away from the subject - I would budget for the twin flash if buying the MPE-65.

With a longer lens you have more lighting options - natural light might be ok, or an ordinary flash (especially if off-camera on a cord) could be used. Also a ringflash is ideal and less pricey than the twin flash.

Phil

[AbPho]

0k. Thanks Phil. I would really like to try these lenses out beforehand. Anyone live in Western Ontario? :D

[macro junkie]

remember that if you have a 100mm macro lens you can take pics of your cat or your garden,but mpe-65 does min of 1:1 life size..so you cant even get a full shot of a dragonfly in frame with mpe-65..you need both 100mm and mpe65 really.

[AbPho]

Like I said I have a standard prime lens (50mm), a wide-tele zoom (17-85mm), and a tele zoom (70-300mm). All I was getting at is I can spend $650 on a 100mm macro or $1000 on a dedicated macro. I'm already 2/3 there. Knowing me I will want the MPE-65 eventually. No reason to spend almost twice as much getting there. But having the chance to play with both will go a long was to making up my mind.

[bokchoi]

The 100mm macro is in a way a dedicated macro, and I don't think the MP-E 65mm would replace it if you had both, unless you were regularly trying to shoot subjects at extremely high magnifications greater than 1:1.

In all honesty, I don't actually own a proper macro lens yet;, I've been shooting bugs mostly with my Sigma 70-300 APO at 1:2 and at 1:1 or greater with my 50mm 1.4 with Kenko tubes; I've found that the shooting styles between the two setups are so dramatically different that I don't find one configuration to be far superior than the other for any stated purpose. Having used my friend's 100mm macro and already missing the working distance of a fake macro telephoto, I would suspect that shooting with the MP-E would require a different shooting style like with the 50mm + tubes, needing very close range.

Having seen the examples posted from people using the 100mm and MP-E, however, I don't think you could possibly go wrong with one or the other once you become proficient with it... :)

[gjl711]

The 100mm macro is in a way a dedicated macro, and I don't think the MP-E 65mm would replace it if you had both, ..They are meant to compliment one another. THe 100mm is from infinity to 1:1 and the MPE-65 is 1:1 to 5:1

[AbPho]

I think I am going to try a DIY macro. I got my hands on an old 35-105mm MACRO 1:3.2-4 Vivitar lens. For $50 I will be able to get a working lens. From there I can play around until I can afford a true Canon macro lens. This will be the better move considering the amount of hours I will be working given the current economic slump.

I thank everyone for their input. Happy bug hunting.

[AbPho]

Oh and another think. Can a 100mm prime be used to make a macro? It is another lens I found for really cheap. Comes with manual aperture and focus. Perhaps I can reverse mount the 35-105 to it. That will yield almost a 3:1 magnification.