MP-E 65 or 100L or 100 f/2.8+tubes?

[TristanCardew]

Hey guys, sorry if this has been asked before, but i'm after some opinions...

I'm getting really into macro photography at the moment, and would love to buy a macro-dedicated lens to use on my 7D. I've been really inspired by Brian V, and notice he uses the MP-E 65 for his super macro fly and flower/dew-drop shots. I'm wondering, for the same price, to get excellent macro photographs, would it be more worthwhile to go an MP-E 65, 100L or the older 100 f/2.8 macro and a bunch of tubes? Is there any clear advantage to going one over the others (obviously I couldn't use the MP-E for anything other than macro...)? It's tough knowing exactly what to do - i'm only beginning macro photography, so want the least-limiting lens I can find...but don't know which this might be!

If you'd like to throw in a thought or opinion i'd be very appreciative (especially you, Brian!)...

Thank you in advance.

Tristan.

[dicklaxt]

Hello Tristan, I was in the same boat last week and still don't know what the exact answer is but I got some good info from others and decided on the Tamron SPAF 90mm f2.8 Di Macro 1:1,,,,$399.95 after rebate with free shipping from Uniquephoto.com,they were a joy to deal with and have been in business since 1947.Tamron was one of the founders of the dedicated Macro so should have a jump start with functionality and I also am getting good reports that this is a really good portait lens.

Good luck in your search

dick

[Warl0rd]

Although I never used a MPE-65, I'm pretty sure it will be damn hard to use for someone just starting macro.

I mean, I had to take my time to get used to the shallow depth of field of 1:1, I can't even imagine how hard it would be to start there and only be able to go up.

After I got comfortable with 1:1 I bought a set of ETs and once again I took my time to get used to 2:1. After a while, 1:1 seems just too wide, and all you want is more magn. Thats why I'll be using a reversed lens on top of everything to get me above 2:1 I'm not sure how it will be, its not just the extra magnification but also the working distance that is cut alot. I consider this my last step, its as close I can get from the "taste" of a MPE-65 and from there I'll either buy a MPE-65 or not.

No mater how much I love macro, having a macro lens (other then the MPE-65) allows you to do other things, like shooting any object bigger then 22mm, which would be impossible with the MPE-65.

To macro the L lens doesn't offer much in comparison with the old lens, it does for the other things, where IS is important and where a wide aperture is important, to macro they are both irrelevant, you use small apertures and either you use a tripod or a flash.

Also don't forget that equipment is just a portion of what makes a great macro photo. Composition and specially lighting is the difference between average and excellent. So i strongly advice you to invest in a flash (either ring or on a bracket)

[LordV]

If you haven't done any macro shooting before then I'd recommend you start with a normal 1:1 macro lens, then get some extension tubes and once you are happy you can shoot at 2:1 think about an MPE-65. It just takes a lot of practice to get used to shooting at higher magnifications.
Brian V.

[TristanCardew]

Thanks for the suggestions guys...perhaps I will stick to a 1:1 macro lens, and then, as Warl0rd suggested, grab a set of extension tubes and try something larger. As I said, i've just been really, really inspired by your shots, Brian!

Anyway, here's a photo of a good old common house fly. Dead, yes, but I wasn't quick enough for anything living...(haha).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/4119146657_bb177b2faf_o.jpg

Thanks once again. :)

[oobinsnaffa]

Hello Tristan, I was in the same boat last week and still don't know what the exact answer is but I got some good info from others and decided on the Tamron SPAF 90mm f2.8 Di Macro 1:1,,,,$399.95 after rebate with free shipping from Uniquephoto.com,they were a joy to deal with and have been in business since 1947.Tamron was one of the founders of the dedicated Macro so should have a jump start with functionality and I also am getting good reports that this is a really good portait lens.

Good luck in your search

dick

This is the route I went as well. I have a good friend who gave me rave reviews of the above-mentioned Tamron, and I spent a lot of time looking at comparison pics on every forum and website I could find. As much as I would love to have the 100mm L-glass Canon macro, I couldn't justify the price difference. In my viewing (and please note that I haven't done a side-by-side comparison of my own), the difference is small enough that I wasn't willing to shell out the extra.

That said, I have used the older Canon non-L macro lens that you mentioned, and it's a lot of fun. I suspect the L version is that but better, so you can't go wrong with it.

[MrContact]

My very first lens purchase (aside from the kit lens) was the MP-E Magic Mole. Before I switched to digital most of my shots were mid ranged and the switch into the extreme macro world was definetly an exciting adventure. However I could see how going with a 100mm would be more conveinent and easier to get use to.

[racketman]

depends what macro subjects you are shooting. If you were mainly interested in subjects as small as ants i'd go straight for the MP-E65 but if you want to shoot the whole range of insects and get full body shots as well as close ups then a 100mm makes more sense. An MP-E cant take full body shots of most butterflies and Dragonflies especially when used with a 1.6 crop sensor like your 7D.