Macrophotography

[Kelpie]

20 years ago I was heavily into macro/nature photography. I still have my equipment. It is all Nikon stuff and in beautiful condition. After my divorce and midlife crisis I've decided to get back into the hobby. However I am shocked, SHOCKED by how much my hobby has changed!!!



I'm thinking of selling my Nikon film equipment and going fully digital and with Canon. I've read John Shaw's book "Closeups In Nature" and was especially taken with his use of a midrange (70 - 200mm) zoom with two-element + diopters for close-up work. As I want to travel as light as possible, I'm considering the 28 - 70mm L f2.8 and the 70 - 200mm L 2.8 lenses to use with a D-20. Okay here is the question.



As I want to again have my photographs published in scholarly journals I wonder if one is taking shots of objects with depth (i.e., not flat like a coin or postage stamp), do the true macro lenses offer any real advantage to a zoom? If definitely so and considering the 1.6 magnification factor with the D-20, is the 180mm L macro that (or any) better with respect to sharpness, color rendition and saturation than the 100mm f2.8 to justify it's purchase over the 100mm?



I'm new here so if I have put this in the wrong forum webmaster, please place it more appropriately.



Thanks,

SAC

[gasrocks]

I think of the true macro lenses as a wonderful convience item. With any combination of telephoto/zoom and extensions and/or close-up lenses, you have a narrow range of magnification available. Murphy's Law says and not the right amount. Get the 100/2.8 USM Macro. It goes from inf. to 1:1 and everything in between. An extension tube or 2 would also be nice - they are light and travel well.

[Kelpie]

Than you GasRocks,

How does your 100 mm 2.8 macro do when used for general photography? I've read that the photos made through a macro at a distance are softer than those through nonmacro lenses of the same focal length though I have never noticed it myself.

[gasrocks]

The 100/2.8 USM macro is one of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made - at any distance! Well worth the (what I call modest) price.

[rent]

i guess it depends on the size of your subject. if they are relatively larger, a 24-70 or 70-200 with a 1.4x may be sufficient and these L's are wonderful everyday lenses too!

i haven't used the 100mm, but i am pretty happy with my 180mm/f3.5L with MT-24EX setup. it gives me plenty of working distance without having to worry about bumping the front element into those little bugs. as far as sharpness and color rendition are concerned, i have no complaints either. see a recent pix here: http://www.mosaicreality.com/pix/Fly.jpg

-alex

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

As you can see from rent's photo, the 180 f/3.5L is AMAZING! I haven't ever used it, but I have used the 100mm f/2.8 macro... I really liked it. Very sharp, but the 180L is obviously more sharp! I've compared pics taken by both lenses, and the L seems considerably better. That and it provides more working distance which is always nice. It is very expensive though! I'd say either macro is good. If you can afford it, go with the L, if you can't, go with the 100mm.

If your going to shoot tiny little bugs like Rent though, your definately going to need a macro. Neither the 24-70 or 70-200 will cut it. Big flowers they're great, but nothing smaller.

Also, you mentioned that you may buy the 70-200 f/2.8L lens? Don't waste your money.... optically, it's not really all that much better than the f/4L version which is far lighter. The extra f stop wont do much for ya. The f/2.8L IS is a great lens though. New IS technology that'll allow you to shoot handheld in low light conditions with a 1/30th and slower shutter speed and still get pretty sharp images. Crazy sweet stuff! So, I'd recommend either the IS, or the f/4 version.

[Hellashot]

If you like macro work, maybe wait until Canon's S2 comes out that boasts a macro minumum focus of less than 1cm. Maybe use that as your "macro lens" and you get a camera with great specs to go along with it! 12x optical zoom, IS, F2.8-3.7

[ScottE]

How does your 100 mm 2.8 macro do when used for general photography? I've read that the photos made through a macro at a distance are softer than those through nonmacro lenses of the same focal length though I have never noticed it myself.

You're thinking Nikon. The older Nikon 105 mm macro lens was soft at non-macro distances. Canon macro lenses have not had that feature and I think it has even been eliminated on newer Nikon lenses.

I have used extension tubes on my Canon 70-200/2.8. They give good, sharp photos, but not the stunning sharpness of a good macro lens. I prefer extension tubes over the two element diopters because there is no added glass.

Scott

[tim]

I 3rd the 100mm macro, it's a great macro lens and a great portrait lens. It's as sharp as any lens I own, probably the sharpest lens actually. You could do a similar picture to what rent posted with the 100mm macro, maybe not quite as detailed, but close. Macro's hard, rent must be very good to get a shot of that quality :)

[Kelpie]

Thanks for all the help guys/gals. My macro work usually did not involve any magnification larger than 1:4.

I really like that syrphid fly (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=syrphid+fly&spell=1) photo Rent! I am now leaning toward that 180 however I don't know if I could use it for much else.

Here is a link to a photo I took 35 years ago with my Nikon stuff. It is pretty typical of the types and sizes of my subjects.

http://photobucket.com/albums/y32/GrowLLLTigeRRR/?action=view&current=D_MONTIC.jpg (http://photobucket.com/albums/y32/GrowLLLTigeRRR/?action=view&current=D_MONTIC.jpg)

[tim]

Wow.

[TammieO]

Kelpie,
Sell the Noink gear and come on over from the Dark Side. This is a much friendlier and more helpful forum! In addition, you can buy a cool POTN neck strap.
If weight is a factor, the 180mm is about a pound heavier than the 100mm.

[gasrocks]

For Dragonflies and things that are a bit larger, and I need to stay back from..... I use my 300/4 L IS on a monopod with the 1.4x I have the 500D close-up for it but ususally don't need that power and like staying back a ways. Can get to about 1/3 life size from 5' away roughly, unless I add an extension.

[GeForceFX]

see a recent pix here: http://www.mosaicreality.com/pix/Fly.jpg

-alex


what is the distance between the bug and the front element of the lens with a shot like that? (with 180L macro)

and howmuch would it be with an 100mm macro?

[Kelpie]

Okay here are my revised plans.


Canon 20-D body

85mm f1.8 lens

185 mm f3.5 L macro

1.4X tele extender

set of extension rings.

Any suggestions for flash and wide angle?

[ScottE]

I have a Canon 17-40 lens, but found that it did not go wide enough for some of my landscape shots. I recently acquired a Canon 10-22.

If I was only going to keep one of those lenses it would be the 10-22 because I like the super-wide shots.

Scott

[rent]

i was pretty close to 1:1 with that shot so the distance between the bug and the front element was less than 2 ft. the closest focusing distance of the 180mm is 1.6 ft.

the closest focusing distance of the 100mm is 1.0 ft.

-alex

what is the distance between the bug and the front element of the lens with a shot like that? (with 180L macro)

and howmuch would it be with an 100mm macro?

[tim]

the closest focusing distance of the 100mm is 1.0 ft.

That's incorrect - it's 6 inches from the end of the lens. Check the specs at B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=194451&is=USA) to confirm this.

[cc10d]

In all cases with the 20D, if using autofocus you will obtain the advantage of a more precise focus with 2.8 or faster lenses.

[rent]

oh now i'm a bit confused. :p

b&h quotes the min. focusing distance of the 180mm as 1.59'. they also list the 60mm(ef-s)'s min. focusing distance as 7.9". both of these are just as spec'd by canon (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf).

i wonder why they list the 100mm's as 6" (surely it would be longer than the 60mm's?)

oh maybe the 6" is the "working distance" which subtracts out the length of the lens and the distance between the rear element of the lens and sensor?

in that case, the 180's working distance must be around 10" or so. umm didn't realize i was that close.

i will just try it out with my 180 tomorrow to get a sure answer. thanks for pointing it out, tim!

-alex

That's incorrect - it's 6 inches from the end of the lens. Check the specs at B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=194451&is=USA) to confirm this.

[Leorooster]

For 100mm the minimum working distance from the sensor to the object is 1' while it's 6" from the front element to the object. Same would apply to the 180mm (i.e., 2').

[Kelpie]

Hummm I figured there would be more distance than that with the 20D 1.6 factor.

What about flashes?

[Leorooster]

For your macro work, the Canon Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX would be the best. Look at the link below for review info:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Flash-and-Lighting-Accessory-Reviews.aspx

[rent]

the 1.6x does not affect the closest focusing distance. -alex

Hummm I figured there would be more distance than that with the 20D 1.6 factor.

What about flashes?

[Kelpie]

Thanks Leo and Rent.


If it doesn't influence the min focus distance, does it affect magnification i.e. could my images be 1:1.6 ?

[Kelpie]

Hey Leo,

Thanks again. I'll probably get that one. What about a general flash to use with the 85mm 1.8.

Has anyone read anything about how the 85mm performs with extension tubes.? From what I have read, it is too short to use with the 1.4X tele extender.

[Leorooster]

Logically, I don't see the 1.6 factor would affect the magnification, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

The following thread is related to 3 different Canon flash models. You may get one of them for general use based on your needs:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=76117

[Kelpie]

Thanks again!


I don't understand. If the 1.6 doesn't affect focusing distance OR magnification but does make a 185mm into a 370mm, what's goin' on???????

[Leorooster]

Hi Kelpie - No, the 1.6 factor certainly would turn the 180mm into 288mm (180 x 1.6) on the 20D or the 350D body, but I don't think it would affect the magnification. Again, I might be wrong on this.

[tim]

It doesn't effect the "magnification". Remember it's a crop factor, not a magnification factor, so all that's really happening is compared with 35mm film you lose the edges of the picture. Even better, just ignore the 1.6 number completely, and look thru the viewfinder.

[Kelpie]

Sorry about the bad math. I don't know what I was thinking LOL.

Anyway thanks for clearing that up about magnification and focusing distance. So is the image as seen in the viewfinder accurate or would I have to imagine the crop? Dang, this isn't good. Why does canon not make a larger sensor???

[Leorooster]

Tim, thanks for confirming this.It doesn't effect the "magnification". Remember it's a crop factor, not a magnification factor, so all that's really happening is compared with 35mm film you lose the edges of the picture. Even better, just ignore the 1.6 number completely, and look thru the viewfinder.

[Leorooster]

You can pretty much see whatever captured on the sensor from the viewfinder, although not 100%, but it's just deminimal to worry about.

Ya, we all wish Canon would make a full size sensor for their prosumer line, but it's just more cost effective for them to make smaller sensors. Just another buz talk......


Sorry about the bad math. I don't know what I was thinking LOL.

Anyway thanks for clearing that up about magnification and focusing distance. So is the image as seen in the viewfinder accurate or would I have to imagine the crop? Dang, this isn't good. Why does canon not make a larger sensor???

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

You wont really have a problem with the view finder on the 20D. What you see, is what you'll get for the most part. The view finder shows 94% of the actual image. (I think... 96%? No, 94. Someone confirm that?) Anyway, there'll be a tinnnyyy bit on the sides.... but not all that much.

There are camera's that display 100% of the image in the view finder like the 1D MkII for example.

And canon does make full frame sensors. They're just realllllyyyy expensive right now. Currently the 1Ds MkII ($8,000.00) has a full frame sensor, and the next best thing is the 1D MkII with a 1.3x sensor. ($4,000.00).

I'm sure that eventually full frame sensors will be a standard on all DSLR's. Give it a few years and it'll happen. The progression of technology never ceases to amaze me. :-)

[Leorooster]

Hi RbrtPtikLeoSeny, 95% is the % I heard (as I remembered).

As for the full frame sensor, I agree with you that ultimately Canon would make it for the prosumer (e.g. 20D) line, but just don't know if it will happen any time soon, as Canon definately wants to distinguish between their "professional" and "prosumer" line of products. Additionally, for the sake of the relatively new EF-S mounts, Canon will probably keep the 1.6 sensors in the market for a while. Just my 2 cents.


You wont really have a problem with the view finder on the 20D. What you see, is what you'll get for the most part. The view finder shows 94% of the actual image. (I think... 96%? No, 94. Someone confirm that?) Anyway, there'll be a tinnnyyy bit on the sides.... but not all that much.

There are camera's that display 100% of the image in the view finder like the 1D MkII for example.

And canon does make full frame sensors. They're just realllllyyyy expensive right now. Currently the 1Ds MkII ($8,000.00) has a full frame sensor, and the next best thing is the 1D MkII with a 1.3x sensor. ($4,000.00).

I'm sure that eventually full frame sensors will be a standard on all DSLR's. Give it a few years and it'll happen. The progression of technology never ceases to amaze me. :-)

[Kelpie]

What are the physical dimensions of the 20D sensor. Maybe we should think of it as something other than 35mm photography. Maybe you youngins' do that already. Rem. I'm a geezer trying to get up to speed here.


http://www.studyworksonline.com/worksheets/Composition/Images/35mmdim.gif
Image dimensions: 24mm x 36mm
Aspect ratio: 1.5:1
Image area: 864 mm2
Enlargement equivalency: 4x6 (inches)

[tim]

What are the physical dimensions of the 20D sensor. Maybe we should think of it as something other than 35mm photography. Maybe you youngins' do that already. Rem. I'm a geezer trying to get up to speed here.


Sensor size, 15.0 X 22.5 mm, 6.4µmx 6.4µm pixel pitch. (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d.html)

I prefer to ignore comparsions with 35mm photography, it's easier and irrelevant for most people. I'll be upgrading to a camera with a larger senson once the next model comes out...

[Leorooster]

Kelpie - the followng link should help you understand the basic of digital camera

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/basics/

Hope it helps.

[rent]

kelpie: if you are gonna get the 180mm/f3.5L with the MT-24EX flash, don't forget to get the 72c adapter ring (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=112547&is=REG). the flash needs the adapter ring to hook up to the lens. you probably also want a 58mm lens cap because it fits right on the adapter ring so you can leave the ring on the lens and use the 58mm lens cap instead.

best of luck!

-alex

Hey Leo,

Thanks again. I'll probably get that one. What about a general flash to use with the 85mm 1.8.

Has anyone read anything about how the 85mm performs with extension tubes.? From what I have read, it is too short to use with the 1.4X tele extender.

[DwightMcCann]

Focusing distance is measured from the film plane, so it's gonna' be shorter when measured from the front of the lens ... two different concerns.

[Kelpie]

What do you think of this bracket with the 180mm macro and 20D? I like to keep things simple (one small flash). However I read this flash is optimized for the 7-points focusing while the 20D is 9-points. If I were to get the 580, I think the flash may be too bright at close distances.

This bracket reminds me of John Shaw's "Butterfly Bracket".

[Kelpie]

Okay I'll try the post this way.

[rent]

the problem with a single flash is that it casts a very noticeable shadow behind your subject. i suppose you can try two 580's if you'd like, but for smaller subjects, you ideally want to get the light sources closer to the central axis of the lens, otherwise the lighting would look weird. i think it'll be hard to set up two 580's to do that.

the MT-24EX solves both of these problems very nicely. you get two small flash heads which are positioned very close to the lens. you can place these two heads virtually anywhere around the lens and can vary the power ratio between them (to create a soft shadow). in addition, it can be used to trigger, for example, a 580 to fill for the background if you so desire.

-alex

[Kelpie]

This guy does some amazing stuff with his point and shoot and this omni-bounce lighting setup.

http://azone.clubsnap.org/home/gallery/index.html

http://azone.clubsnap.org/home/gallery/macros/index.html


http://azone.clubsnap.org/insectguide/images/omni.jpg