-=TOP TEN=- Which macro lens do you use?

[Lester Wareham]

Originally Posted by roger the photographer

I just voted for the Canon 100mm f/2.8, which is the macro lens I use 100% of the time. My next buy, though, will be the Canon 180mm L macro. It should give me a bit more reach with a full-sized sensor like the 5D.

Any thoughts about converters or rings, for someone who wishes to get more that a 1:1 ratio? Does anybody use them?

Hi Roger,

Just keep in mind the 180mm is quite a heavy lens if you are working handheld, great on a tripod.

You can use tubes or teleconvertors with your 100mm to get more magnification. With about 60mm of tubes you will get to about 2:1 but with reduced working distance, with a 2X for example you get 2:1 at the same working distance. BTW you can use the Canon TCs with the 100mm if you put a small 12mm tube between the TC and the lens.

If I need more than life size I tend to use my MP-E 65mm which goes from 1X to 5X but with relatively shart working distance, blisteringly sharp however.

[roger the photographer]

Hi Lester,

I will come back to you on this as I do not want to hijack the thread for my own purposes. But in short, weight is no concern, I'm used to heavy equipment always on a tripod, doing insect photography in the wild. Reach is of prime importance, hence the 180mm. I've read several of your posts about converters and rings, will need additional info about this also, if this doesn't bother you.

To give you an idea, here is an example of the work I like to do, for which I would love a better reach and a better lens if possible

[Lester Wareham]

Originally Posted by roger the photographer

Hi Lester,

I will come back to you on this as I do not want to hijack the thread for my own purposes. But in short, weight is no concern, I'm used to heavy equipment always on a tripod, doing insect photography in the wild. Reach is of prime importance, hence the 180mm. I've read several of your posts about converters and rings, will need additional info about this also, if this doesn't bother you.

To give you an idea, here is an example of the work I like to do, for which I would love a better reach and a better lens if possible

Some great shots there, you clearly are doing well with your methods.

I guess if you are working in ambient light from a tripod with insects, reach is the key thing, my personal experience is that the insects are normally too difficult to get an angle on with a tripod and tiny subject movements are an issue, but most of all it is difficult to stalk-in with a tripod without disturbing the undergrowth.

So the 180 is the thing, there is also the Sigma 180. You can add a 1.4X or 2X I suggest you start a general thread in the lens forum requesting TC feedback from lucky owners of the 180. There is also this review.

I have used my 300/4 IS with tubes and with the 1.4X & 2X for some insect work where the subject is very shy. I found it becomes increasingly hard to locate the subject in the frame as the angle of view decreases, as you have to search in x/y and slivers of depth. 300mm I found just very usable but with the 1.4X or 2X hard to use except with the lager insects for this reason.

So I would say for use up to like size you probably would not want to use more than the 1.4X for these use-case reasons, perhaps the 2X for larger bugs like the bigger mantids and dragons.

[roger the photographer]

Originally Posted by Lester Wareham

Some great shots there, you clearly are doing well with your methods.

I guess if you are working in ambient light from a tripod with insects, reach is the key thing, my personal experience is that the insects are normally too difficult to get an angle on with a tripod and tiny subject movements are an issue, but most of all it is difficult to stalk-in with a tripod without disturbing the undergrowth.

So the 180 is the thing, there is also the Sigma 180. You can add a 1.4X or 2X I suggest you start a general thread in the lens forum requesting TC feedback from lucky owners of the 180.

(...).

Hi Lester,

Thank you for your interesting and instructive comments. I will start a new thread tonight about this, including a ref to your post if you do not object.

Life is fun!

[StealthLude]

I voted for a lens on this forum before I owned one. But I picked up the 100mm Canon 2.8 macro and havent looked back since.

Very happy with my lens.

[roger the photographer]

Originally Posted by Lester Wareham

Some great shots there, you clearly are doing well with your methods.

I guess if you are working in ambient light from a tripod with insects, reach is the key thing, my personal experience is that the insects are normally too difficult to get an angle on with a tripod and tiny subject movements are an issue, but most of all it is difficult to stalk-in with a tripod without disturbing the undergrowth.

So the 180 is the thing, there is also the Sigma 180. You can add a 1.4X or 2X
(...)

Hi Lester,

Hi started a new thread about this, as you suggested.

Thanks a lot.

[Cactuspic]

Sigma 180mm, Sigma 105mm, Canon 65mp-e, Rodenstock rodagon 75mm D2x, Zeiss 60mm. Best regards.

Irwin

[scraps]

Recently picked up the Sigma 70mm F/2.8 macro; really enjoying it, very sharp lense. Will get some pics up before long.

[Lester Wareham]

Originally Posted by racketman

You have the 60 which is light and ideal for the smaller bugs where a heavier lens might be hard to avoid shake without use of a tripod. Now you should go for a 150/180 for the timid bugs, like most Dragonflies, that you cant easily approach for close ups with the 60.

I feel a bit like a cheat but I mostly use the 300 f4L IS with tubes for dragons and damsels. For a Migrant Hawker pair they were so nervy I ended up using the 300 f4 with the 2X from a distance of about 5ft.

Butterflies and most bugs etc I use the 100mm macro mostly now my stalking has improved a bit unless I need lots of mag the the MP-E.

[roger the photographer]

Originally Posted by Lester Wareham

I feel a bit like a cheat but I mostly use the 300 f4L IS with tubes for dragons and damsels. For a Migrant Hawker pair they were so nervy I ended up using the 300 f4 with the 2X from a distance of about 5ft.

Butterflies and most bugs etc I use the 100mm macro mostly now my stalking has improved a bit unless I need lots of mag the the MP-E.

I do not think that this is cheating, Lester. It does the job quite well apparently, and from a distance!!! Photographer James Longster does it all the time with great success too, even for some smaller bugs.

I will have to ask him too, but what is your minimum working distance, with and without tubes? Also, do you use a tripod in this case? And finally, what kind of image degradation do you observe with a 2X multiplier on the 300L?

Stalking and patience are the name of the game...

[Lester Wareham]

Originally Posted by roger the photographer

I do not think that this is cheating, Lester. It does the job quite well apparently, and from a distance!!! Photographer James Longster does it all the time with great success too, even for some smaller bugs.

I will have to ask him too, but what is your minimum working distance, with and without tubes? Also, do you use a tripod in this case? And finally, what kind of image degradation do you observe with a 2X multiplier on the 300L?

Stalking and patience are the name of the game...

Hi Roger

The 300mm f4 has a closest focus on it's own of 1.5m with a magnification of 0.24, enough reason to get the lens alone IMHO. Obviously with the 2X the magnification goes to 0.48 and the closest focus remains the same, but 600mm at close distance is hard to use - having found the subject however I do not find the manual focus much of an issue.

With tubes (no TC), I have some rough measurements with Kenko tubes prior to switching to the Canon ones. With the 68mm stack you get a magnification range of 0.22-0.58 and a WD of 1770-680mm. For dragons I tend to use just one 25mm tube and for damsels two 25mm tubes.

Something I have noted with tubes on this lens is the camera meter tends to over expose by about 1/2 stop, something that is made worse by the saturated colours of these bugs, so I often backoff by about 2/3 - 1 stop of indicated.

As for the 2X, the 300 holds resolution well acording to measurement, not as well as the 200/2.8 but very usable and definatly better than upressing.

You can checkout some of my dragon shots to give some idea.

The actual shoot with the 2X I was talking about was one of these to give an idea:

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...nfly%20035.jpg

100% crop

[::Lisa::]

I only have 1 macro lens right now, which is the Sigma 105mm.

I just bought myself a reverse ring and some extenstion rings too w00t

[Lester Wareham]

Come on you people - get your submissions in for the POTN book!

See the link below.

[LoganWade]

I just voted for the 100 2.8. After reading all the reviews I bid on a used only once lens on ebay. It came with the canon hood and b&w filter, shipped for $467.00. Seemed like a good deal to me and no extra hastle of ordering a hood seperately. Should be here soon, cant wait to try it!

[roger the photographer]

Originally Posted by Lester Wareham

Hi Roger

The 300mm f4 has a closest focus on it's own of 1.5m with a magnification of 0.24, enough reason to get the lens alone IMHO. Obviously with the 2X the magnification goes to 0.48 and the closest focus remains the same, but 600mm at close distance is hard to use - having found the subject however I do not find the manual focus much of an issue.

(...)

Thanks for this very interesting info and for taking the time, Lester. Sorry I didn't answer before, I've been away for a time.

Your shots are really terrific and give me a lot of ideas. And the technical info on your website is quite something too. Your website goes right into the Links section of my own website.

I will try to borrow some material and experiment with tubes, the 180mm macro and also the 300 mm from Canon. This will hopefully give me an idea on what is the best buy for what I do.

An other point: Is there is difference in magnification when using a 20D or a 5D? I would be inclined to say yes as the 20D uses only part of the potential image. Its magnification factor should then be greater than 1:1 with a lens like the 100mm macro, should it not? Not absolutely sure about that one though...