65mm Macro versus 100mm Macro

[Bwaaaa]

I am trying to decide which macro lense to get. I think I have narrowed it down to the 65MM 1x-5x or the 100mm (both Canon). Any advice? The magnification on th 65mm sounds intriguing.

Thanks,

Bill

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Many suggest that the MP-E 65 f/2.8 1-5x is for more experienced macro shooters. I would suggest the 100mm canon or 105mm sigma, or bettter yet the 150mm Sigma EX DG f/2.8

I also have my eye on the Mp-E 65mm, but not now, later when I develop more experience.

[GPR1]

The 100mm can be used as a general lens as well; the 65mm is a macro-only lens. I don't have any experience with the 65, but the 100 is a sharp, great lens. I also use mine to take portaits.

You can get additional magnification from the 100 with some extension tubes (which aren't too expensive) so you can get that effect with the 100 & tubes.

Unless you do a great deal of specialized macro I'd get the 100 & tubes and you'll have more flexibility.

Greg

[weasel]

The 65mm focuses only between life-size and 5X life-size. It can make shots no other lens can but that is so limited and requires a very stable enveroment and steady fingers with a focusing rail.

[Sprout Crumble]

I use an MP-E65 and a Sigma 150. Trust me, the 65 is a stunning lens but for all-round use, it'd have to be one of the 100mm's.
The 65's focus range is between 101mm and 41mm and can only photograph something of sensor size or smaller. A highly unique glass but not a very flexible one.

On another note, consider Sigmas 150mm macro as its a real stunner and every bit the equal of the Canon optically.

[tim]

The 100mm macro is a great lens, very sharp, and has a good working distance. I use it as a portrait lens sometimes too, it's my sharpest lens.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

I use an MP-E65 and a Sigma 150. Trust me, the 65 is a stunning lens but for all-round use, it'd have to be one of the 100mm's.
The 65's focus range is between 121mm and 41mm and can only photograph something of sensor size or smaller. A highly unique glass but not a very flexible one.

On another note, consider Sigmas 150mm macro as its a real stunner and every bit the equal of the Canon optically.

Can you elaborate further on the MP-E 65mm ?

What do you mean focus range is between 121mm and 41mm? I thought it was fixed focal @ 65mm? And why can you only shoot something of sensor size and smaller? Which sensor size? the camera it is attached to?

[weasel]

Can you elaborate further on the MP-E 65mm ?

And why can you only shoot something of sensor size and smaller? Which sensor size? the camera it is attached to?

The lens can focus from "lifesize" to "5X lifesize". It matters not what the sensor size is (which is different on the 20D vs. 1D vs. 1Ds). Lifesize means that what is captured by the senson (or film) is the same size as in real life. Therefore, something 10mm long will be captured 10mm long on the sensor when shot at "lifesize". Whatever the sensor (or film) size is "lifesize" is the same size it captures in real life. At "5X lifesize" the 10mm long item (used above) will be captured as being 50mm long. The subject lens will focus between "lifesize" and "5X lifesize" ONLY.

[Andy_T]

Take a look here:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/mp-e-65

Most likely also very interesting ... and cheaper:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007m6Z

Best regards,
Andy

[KevNJ]

The 100mm can be used as a general lens as well; the 65mm is a macro-only lens. I don't have any experience with the 65, but the 100 is a sharp, great lens. I also use mine to take portaits.

You can get additional magnification from the 100 with some extension tubes (which aren't too expensive) so you can get that effect with the 100 & tubes.

Unless you do a great deal of specialized macro I'd get the 100 & tubes and you'll have more flexibility.

Greg

I have the 100m. Which size tubes should I go with ?! Or just get a set like the Kenko ?

[Andy_T]

The Kenko tubes will bring the same performance, but cheaper.
You can also stack them.

Best regards,
Andy

[Sprout Crumble]

The lens can focus from "lifesize" to "5X lifesize". It matters not what the sensor size is (which is different on the 20D vs. 1D vs. 1Ds). Lifesize means that what is captured by the senson (or film) is the same size as in real life. Therefore, something 10mm long will be captured 10mm long on the sensor when shot at "lifesize". Whatever the sensor (or film) size is "lifesize" is the same size it captures in real life. At "5X lifesize" the 10mm long item (used above) will be captured as being 50mm long. The subject lens will focus between "lifesize" and "5X lifesize" ONLY.

It does matter what the sensor size is. By definition, if something is life-size then only something the size of the sensor can be fitted in at that magnification. The MPE65 is a special case in that it cannot focus on an object bigger than that, unlike other macros that can focus to infinity and thus be used to photograph anything.

Therefore, the MPE65 can't focus, for example, on a subject 40x30mm big on a 1D Mk2 in its entirety.

I understand what you're saying, but I was pointing out to Bwaaaa that this lens doesn't work like other macros.

[weasel]

It does matter what the sensor size is. By definition, if something is life-size then only something the size of the sensor can be fitted in at that magnification.

CorruptedPhotographer wrote "And why can you only shoot something of sensor size and smaller?"

I replied "It matters not what the sensor size is (which is different on the 20D vs. 1D vs. 1Ds). Lifesize means that what is captured by the senson (or film) is the same size as in real life. "

I guess I fail to see where I am in error. Of course a larger format captures a bigger slice of "real life" than a smaller format. But, reguardless of format size my statement is correct.

[Sprout Crumble]

You're not in error.

My point is that if you wish to photograph an object larger than the size of the sensor in your camera, whatever model that is, its not possible to focus on it using the MP-E65. In that respect, the object you are photographing with this lens can be larger on a full-frame body than an APSC body. On a normal macro lens, you simply back off slightly, reframe and refocus. The 65 can't do that.
I'm trying to highlight the fundamental difference between his two choices. The 100mm and the 65mm are not directly comparable.

[weasel]

The 100mm and the 65mm are not directly comparable.

Yep, apples and oranges.

[Ron Wilson]

Go with the 100mm.

[spiders]

I don't have the 100mm lens, but I do have the 180mm L macro and the MP-E 65mm. Working distance matters more than you think when you are trying to take pictures of stuff on the fly (so to speak) and the 100mm does give you extra elbow room there so if you are interested in mobile stuff, go with the 100mm. With the 65mm you can nearly bump into your subject you need to be so close at higher magnifications. Despite what others say about a tripod being a must for the 65mm, it isn't true, but you do have to relearn how to shoot with this lens. I find you need to be in an almost trance-like state to take crisp shots at 3-5X. The 1-2x is easy. It helps if you work on your breathing and practice slowing your heart-rate for the 5x hand-held shots. Alternatively, do lots of finger exercises so you can hit the erase image button frequently! What I like about the MP-E 65 that you don't see with any other lens is that it is basically a dissecting microscope mounted on a camera, but with much better lighting options. Your range of subject matter takes you well beyond the butterflies and flower zone into downright freaky stuff (have you ever taken a picture of a spore-bearing lichen at 4x?-it looks like a landscape from a Dr. Seuss book, but even weirder colors!). I'm starting to digress, but basically the 100mm gives you more flexibility (i.e. portraits and little stuff), but the MP-E takes your subject matter well out of the world of the mundane to something that we just can't see.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

spiders was it your first macro lens? Any sample images? Possibly an online gallery ?
thanks for the wonderful insight on this lens

[spiders]

Corrupted Photographer-

Strangely enough, not only was the MP-E 65 my first macro lens, but it was the first lens I ever used on a digital SLR of any kind. If you are like me, you won't take clean and clear shots the first time out with this lens, but if you have gone digital--who cares? I requested more megs from my local webmaster to post images. If I get more memory allocated, I'll post some images of realistic expectations (i.e. images I took on my first day of use without any post-processing). Again, the 100mm would be great for your garden-variety macro--whole insect images, butterflies, pictures of small flowers etc. The MP-E 65mm is great if you want to see the diamond-like facets on some insect and spider corneas or want to see the pattern of pollen drift around a stamen. If you want to photograph a spider in a web, the 100 works. If you want a photo of a single strand of silk you need the 65mm. It is better to think of the 65mm as a mobile bellows unit rather than a macro. It is so different that it takes a bit of time to reorient yourself back to "normal" lenses. I don't know what experience you have with macros, but this lens you are routinely dealing with depth of fields in the 0.5-0.01mm range so take pictures of stationary objects only or work on your breathing and yoga. I love mine, but it is a challenge to work with. I set the f-stop to 16, strap on an MT-24EX twinlite to the front, set the flash to through-the-lens automatic, and speed around 250 and that really gives you a bit more depth of field as long as you don't mind flash lighting dominating your images. I must tell you that I use the camera for spider species identification rather than asthetic pursuits, but I have found some great subjects that nearly look abstract (e.g. mushroom gills, ant bite wounds--yes ants apparently injure each other, harvestmen eyes, pseudoscorpion chela and other stuff that you just can't see).

[CorruptedPhotographer]

wow, sounds more like a microscope then a lens. thanks for the wonderful info Spiders and good luck :D

[blu82]

I disagree with the flexibility theory. If you want flexibility, get more lenses.