Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 18 Mar 2013 (Monday) 09:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Best Macro Lens For Full Frame?

 
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,356 posts
Gallery: 207 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4220
Joined Dec 2008
     
Mar 18, 2013 16:20 |  #16

jaomul wrote in post #15729093 (external link)
From anything I read the IS is useful when the L version is used as a regular lens but not so much when using as a macro

When shooting macro, you're dealing with a very narrow DoF. I find IS extremely useful, not only for the actual shot, but when trying to achieve focus on a precise point. A bug's eye makes for a small target. ;)

And tripods are a pain when chasing little critters.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jaomul
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 65
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Cork, Ireland
     
Mar 18, 2013 16:25 |  #17

LV Moose wrote in post #15729144 (external link)
When shooting macro, you're dealing with a very narrow DoF. I find IS extremely useful, not only for the actual shot, but when trying to achieve focus on a precise point. A bug's eye makes for a small target. ;)

And tripods are a pain when chasing little critters.

That's fair enough. I couldn't afford the L one when i was buying and had read that IS wasn't overly necessary on a macro lens. Obviously your opinion as an actual IS macro lens user carries significantly more water than a guy paid to review it


flickr (external link)
Olympus EM5,Nikon d7200,
Olympus 12-50mm, 40-150mm,17mm f2.8,Nikon 50mm F1.8, Tamron 90mm vc, 18-105mmVR, Sigma 18-35 f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,356 posts
Gallery: 207 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4220
Joined Dec 2008
     
Mar 18, 2013 17:12 |  #18

jaomul wrote in post #15729178 (external link)
...Obviously your opinion as an actual IS macro lens user carries significantly more water than a guy paid to review it

Thanks. Although I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there shooting bugs without IS. I just know I would have a harder time without it.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,941 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Likes: 4033
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 18, 2013 17:47 as a reply to  @ LV Moose's post |  #19

Macro does not define what you want to do.

Since macro means bugs to a lot of people, working distance is usually a consideration. That's the main purpose of 180mm and 150 macros, it gives you some distance from the bug so you are less likely to scare it away.
But they are huge compared to many shorter focal length macro lenses and much more expensive.

If you are doing static objects, studio setups, needs will be very different.


How about this - can anyone name a bad macro lens?


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,356 posts
Gallery: 207 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4220
Joined Dec 2008
     
Mar 18, 2013 17:52 |  #20

Choderboy wrote in post #15729484 (external link)
Macro does not define what you want to do.

MarkyMark22 wrote in post #15727725 (external link)
Just a lens for casual macro work such as photographing bugs/flowers etc..

I like the 100mm as it can also double up as a pretty good portrait lens judging by the sample photo thread.

How much more does he need to define what he wants to do?


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,941 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Likes: 4033
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 18, 2013 17:59 |  #21

LV Moose wrote in post #15729366 (external link)
Thanks. Although I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there shooting bugs without IS. I just know I would have a harder time without it.

Absolutely offering different opinion here - not trying to disagree :)

I actually found IS a hinderance for macro -
Usually I'm manually focusing. With MPE65 no choice - so achieving focus is done by moving my body. IS tries to compensate! FAIL!

It's once I "semi"achieve focus, ie my slight body movements in tune so the subject is coming in and out of focus (or the part of the eyeball I want) - not intentional body movement, I'm being as still as I can, I try to time the shutter click with an infocus moment. With IS on, it tries to compensate for movement, then eventually maxs at end of travel, resets, and I swear in frustration.

The exposure is done by flash anyway, typically 1/10,000 sec duration or less so IS would not have helped anyway.

I'm talking higher magnification - close to 1:1 or higher.
At lower magnifications I could see IS being useful.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,941 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Likes: 4033
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:07 |  #22

LV Moose wrote in post #15729507 (external link)
How much more does he need to define what he wants to do?

Yes, point taken.

2nd try: For causal work as you describe any macro would be fine.
It's only if you have any specific interests I would be more carefull with choice.
IS will allow easier natural light macro. Also good for the optional portrait work.
Longer length will provide working distance - good for not scaring away bugs.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dexy101
Goldmember
Avatar
2,359 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Likes: 967
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Scotland
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:10 |  #23

I have both the 135 and 100L macro is. Ill never sell either. Both have their uses and both are stunning on full frame.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,356 posts
Gallery: 207 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4220
Joined Dec 2008
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:14 |  #24

Choderboy wrote in post #15729529 (external link)
Absolutely offering different opinion here - not trying to disagree :)

I actually found IS a hinderance for macro -
Usually I'm manually focusing. With MPE65 no choice - so achieving focus is done by moving my body. IS tries to compensate! FAIL!

It's once I "semi"achieve focus, ie my slight body movements in tune so the subject is coming in and out of focus (or the part of the eyeball I want) - not intentional body movement, I'm being as still as I can, I try to time the shutter click with an infocus moment. With IS on, it tries to compensate for movement, then eventually maxs at end of travel, resets, and I swear in frustration.

The exposure is done by flash anyway, typically 1/10,000 sec duration or less so IS would not have helped anyway.

I'm talking higher magnification - close to 1:1 or higher.
At lower magnifications I could see IS being useful.

Different strokes for different folks, as they say. But I also usually focus the same way you do... manual focus, moving my body forward or back. I've never had IS cause a problem there. And I frequently shoot at 1:1, or 2:1 with tubes.

Using f/11 on a 40D (I just recently went FF), I use relatively low ISO's due to noise (prefering 400); even with a flash I never got my shutterspeed into the really high numbers. Usually no higher than 1/800, and frequently much lower.

Anyway, we all do what works best for us :)


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sgtbueno
Senior Member
Avatar
807 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2012
Location: Richmond, VA
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:18 |  #25

I cant never get sharp images without IS, I need my 100L 100% of the time for macro, images are always sharp.


Wedding Photography by Felix Bueno Photography (external link) -- Facebook (external link)
1x Canon 5DIII - 2X Canon 5D Mark II - Sigma 35 1.4 - Sigma 50 1.4 - Sigma 85 1.4 - Canon 85 1.2 - Canon 100L IS - Canon 135L F2 - Canon 16-35L II - Canon 70-200 2.8 II IS - 6X YN600EX-RT -Canon 580EX II X 2- Canon 430EX II X3- Yongnuo YN-565EX - and tons of Radio Poppers :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,941 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Likes: 4033
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:18 as a reply to  @ LV Moose's post |  #26

Yeah, genuinely interested to discuss other's techniques.
I usually use low ISO, shutter speed 1/30 - 1/125 (usually chosen for the resulting ambient exposure) with flash providing the main exposure.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weeatmice
Senior Member
Avatar
763 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Essex UK
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:44 |  #27

With the 100L on the 1d4 you can use AF Servo up to 1:1 in good light. Setting the focus limiter to macro (0.3m - 0.5m) helps the speed. I use joystick to choose the AF point. I've had some sucess with that and its much less tiring than the camera positioning technique - though it has its limits. If you focus right up to the point of shooting it works suprisingly well. I still use both ways, especially if the subject stays long enough then I use LV and try to get a manual focus shot aswell to be sure.


FS: UK: 1D Mark IV.
Twopixel.co.uk (external link) | 500px (external link) | flickr (external link) | Twitter (external link) | Pinterest (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:04 |  #28

Cam101 wrote in post #15728775 (external link)
If money is not a concern, go for the Canon 100L Macro. If you skimp out and get the non-L... you'll always regret it.

I don't regret it.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,941 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Likes: 4033
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:47 |  #29

Sirrith wrote in post #15729767 (external link)
I don't regret it.

And have plenty of nice results to qualify that statement :)

I believe thread already has quite different views from users with nice results to show what they can achieve.
So there can be no right answer.

There has yet to be a macro lens that anyone suggests avoiding.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:51 |  #30

Choderboy wrote in post #15729961 (external link)
And have plenty of nice results to qualify that statement :)

I believe thread already has quite different views from users with nice results to show what they can achieve.
So there can be no right answer.

There has yet to be a macro lens that anyone suggests avoiding.

Thanks :)

Yes, it is very hard to go "wrong" with a macro lens, as they are all just so good!


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

12,615 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best Macro Lens For Full Frame?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Harper
1129 guests, 338 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.