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]

Originally Posted by Kelpie

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 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

[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]

Originally Posted by rent

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?