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 Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
Thread started 07 Jan 2016 (Thursday) 11:44
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Macro Lens Comparison

 
this thread is locked
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
6,015 posts
Gallery: 122 photos
Likes: 4209
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Feb 15, 2016 02:10 |  #16

John Koerner wrote in post #17898580 (external link)
It's amazing how many people skim what they read.

I didn't say the MacroTwinlight the 'only' choice.

What I said was, you either need a flash or a macro rail to shoot the MP-E-65 ... and that whichever you choose (or both) becomes an added expense.

I do agree I should have said "flash" rather than specify the TwinLite.
However the takeaway isn't to quibble over minutia, but to recognize the need for additional lighting (or absolute stability) with the MP-E.

No way are you shooting greater than 1:1 wildlife photos without a flash or without a macro rail.

You will not be able to show me a single (sharp) non-staged wildlife photograph taken with the MP-E 65 at greater than 1:1, without the assistance of either some kind of flash or a macro rail.


Why argue? You said need twinlight or macro rail or both. Neither are needed.

Which part did I skim?

Direct quote from your blog:
, yet in order to shoot it effectively, you need to spend an additional $829 on a Macro Twinlight Flash, or to spend another $465 on a Macro Rail, or you need both,


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
6,015 posts
Gallery: 122 photos
Likes: 4209
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Feb 15, 2016 02:11 |  #17

It's amazing how people are unable to read their own writing.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dalantech
Goldmember
Avatar
4,656 posts
Gallery: 289 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1140
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Bacoli, Italy
     
Feb 15, 2016 02:26 |  #18

Choderboy wrote in post #17898759 (external link)
It's amazing how people are unable to read their own writing.

LOL!

I could pick that piece apart paragraph by paragraph but it's just not worth the effort. Anyone who complains that the MP-E 65mm macro lens can only be used for macro isn't thinking clearly...


My Gallery (external link)
My Blog (external link)
Macro Tutorials (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
     
Feb 15, 2016 12:49 |  #19
bannedPermanent ban

Choderboy wrote in post #17898757 (external link)
Why argue? You said need twinlight or macro rail or both. Neither are needed.

Which part did I skim?

Direct quote from your blog:
, yet in order to shoot it effectively, you need to spend an additional $829 on a Macro Twinlight Flash, or to spend another $465 on a Macro Rail, or you need both,

Please show me a single wildlife image (not shot of ice, or an inanimate object), but wildlife photo taken with the MP-E 65 mm that was done, at over 1:1, without the use of flash or a macro rail.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner.
     
Feb 15, 2016 12:54 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

Dalantech wrote in post #17898769 (external link)
LOL!

I could pick that piece apart paragraph by paragraph but it's just not worth the effort. Anyone who complains that the MP-E 65mm macro lens can only be used for macro isn't thinking clearly...


Actually, you can't do much besides complain and post photos of bated bees/wasps in unpleasant, highlight-blown flash lighting.

I don't think you actually know the difference between nature photography and "bated bees in my backyard" photography.

So, please, go ahead and expound on what uses the MP-E 65 mm can be put besides macro.

Show me the fine portraiture you've taken with it. Action shots as well. (All without the use of flash, too.)

Jack




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BlakeC
"Dad was a meat cutter"
Avatar
2,673 posts
Gallery: 372 photos
Likes: 675
Joined Jul 2014
Location: West Michigan, USA
     
Feb 15, 2016 12:58 |  #21

I WANT a macro lens but I don't NEED one. Thanks for posting this...looks like a good start for me if I get serious about buying one! :lol:


Blake C
BlakeC-Photography.com (external link)
Follow Me on Facebook (external link) , Instagram (external link), or Google+ (external link)
80D |70D | SL1 - Σ 18-35 1.8 ART, Σ 50-100 1.8 ART, Σ 17-50 2.8, Canon 24 2.8 Pancake, Canon 50 1.8 STM, Canon 10-18 STM, Canon 18-135 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
     
Feb 15, 2016 13:06 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

BlakeC wrote in post #17899264 (external link)
I WANT a macro lens but I don't NEED one. Thanks for posting this...looks like a good start for me if I get serious about buying one! :lol:

We all evolve and change as we go along :)

I am replacing my "field macro lens" with a 300 mm telephoto (external link). My studio macro lens (external link) (for up to 1:1 stacks and such) is on its way from Japan right now.

I have replaced my Canon MP-E 65 with a set of all-manual, all-metal old school Nikon lenses, with reverse-rings (external link), so I hope to begin this new season with some improved results.

The (totally missed) point of my article was for the reader to ask himself what kind of macro imagery interests you the most, and then to freely re-shuffle the order in which I put the ratings, based on your own needs.

The strengths and weaknesses of each lens are correct.
However, how you interpret/shuffle the deck, is entirely personal, and subject to your own shooting style.

Jack




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BlakeC
"Dad was a meat cutter"
Avatar
2,673 posts
Gallery: 372 photos
Likes: 675
Joined Jul 2014
Location: West Michigan, USA
     
Feb 15, 2016 13:11 |  #23

John Koerner wrote in post #17899280 (external link)
what kind of macro imagery interests you the most, and then to freely re-shuffle the order in which I put the ratings, based on your own needs.

This is where I am at. Don't know enough to make an educated decision yet so I am also researching. I honestly don't pay attention or care what order you put them in. I am more interested in your experience with them and how the lens would suit me. I know it is your opinion and I am more than capable of picking out the parts that are your opinion and the parts that apply to me. Some people just like to nitpick. :lol:


Blake C
BlakeC-Photography.com (external link)
Follow Me on Facebook (external link) , Instagram (external link), or Google+ (external link)
80D |70D | SL1 - Σ 18-35 1.8 ART, Σ 50-100 1.8 ART, Σ 17-50 2.8, Canon 24 2.8 Pancake, Canon 50 1.8 STM, Canon 10-18 STM, Canon 18-135 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,183 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2583
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 15, 2016 13:12 |  #24

John Koerner wrote in post #17899257 (external link)
Please show me a single wildlife image (not shot of ice, or an inanimate object), but wildlife photo taken with the MP-E 65 mm that was done, at over 1:1, without the use of flash or a macro rail.

i mean can you show any photo with any macro lens of a wildlife image that didn't use a flash?

in my mind all macro lenses pretty much need flash


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dalantech
Goldmember
Avatar
4,656 posts
Gallery: 289 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1140
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Bacoli, Italy
Post edited over 3 years ago by Dalantech.
     
Feb 15, 2016 14:05 |  #25

John Koerner wrote in post #17899260 (external link)
Actually, you can't do much besides complain and post photos of bated bees/wasps in unpleasant, highlight-blown flash lighting.

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/717/22788287677_e0e3323d37_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AHHV​ZF  (external link) Mantis Portrait I (external link) by John Kimbler (external link), on Flickr

John Koerner wrote in post #17899260 (external link)
I don't think you actually know the difference between nature photography and "bated bees in my backyard" photography.

As soon as someone comes up with a standard definition of what natural means then you might have an argument. IMHO macro isn't natural since I can show you more detail than you can naturally see...

John Koerner wrote in post #17899260 (external link)
So, please, go ahead and expound on what uses the MP-E 65 mm can be put besides macro.

Jack I fully understand that the MP-E 65mm is a macro only lens. You're the one who's complaining that you can't photograph a bird if it lands in front of you if the lens is on your camera. Didn't you read your own article ;)

On a side note: I do have a wide angle converter lens that will allow me to use the MP-E 65mm pretty much out to infinity. Something that you'd might know how to do if you had more experience shooting with the lens...

John Koerner wrote in post #17899260 (external link)
Show me the fine portraiture you've taken with it. Action shots as well. (All without the use of flash, too.)

Jack

There's just not enough light at 1x and higher to take action shots with natural light, that's why the folks who do it use a flash. If you had more experience shooting macro you might understand...

Seriously Jack that piece you wrote is so incredibly biased, and naive, it's not even remotely funny.


My Gallery (external link)
My Blog (external link)
Macro Tutorials (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 15, 2016 18:38 |  #26
bannedPermanent ban

DreDaze wrote in post #17899294 (external link)
i mean can you show any photo with any macro lens of a wildlife image that didn't use a flash?
in my mind all macro lenses pretty much need flash

Broaden your mind:

IMAGE: http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000482_small.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.thenatureph​otographer.club/JohnKo​erner/311/482/medium  (external link)

IMAGE: http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000306_small.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.thenatureph​otographer.club/JohnKo​erner/342/306/medium  (external link)

IMAGE: http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001233_small.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.thenatureph​otographer.club/JohnKo​erner/644/1233/medium  (external link)

IMAGE: http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000403_small.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.thenatureph​otographer.club/JohnKo​erner/598/403/medium  (external link)

All taken in natural light, with my old Canon 7D + 180 mm macro.

That was another point of the article, namely that the 180 mm focus distance offers better reach (and, hence, the ability to use natural light, which creates better colors IMO, as well as better bokeh).

I have now upgraded to the Nikon D810, and have some nice lenses on the way, so we will see what the new season brings :)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner. (4 edits in all)
     
Feb 15, 2016 18:51 |  #27
bannedPermanent ban

Dalantech wrote in post #17899358 (external link)
XX

Hi John. Your mantis shot looks like another staged shot of a bug on a stick.


Dalantech wrote in post #17899358 (external link)
As soon as someone comes up with a standard definition of what natural means then you might have an argument. IMHO macro isn't natural since I can show you more detail than you can naturally see...

Natural = untouched by man.

That your lens can show you details you can't see with your eye is irrelevant.

The criteria is, did you affect the subject? Or did you take the shot undisturbed, unmanipulated?


Dalantech wrote in post #17899358 (external link)
Jack I fully understand that the MP-E 65mm is a macro only lens. You're the one who's complaining that you can't photograph a bird if it lands in front of you if the lens is on your camera. Didn't you read your own article ;)

Again, you lack comprehension.
(Rather than become angry, I will simply pity you for your deficit.)

The reason why I rated the Sigma 180 as #1 is because you can take a 1:1 shot when it's available, and then turn right around and take a shot of your girlfriend moments later.

If you bring only the MP-E 65 in the field, you can take some great macros ... but if your girlfriend strikes a cute pose, you can't do anything about it. If a bird lands 20' away, you can't do anything about it.

With the Sigma 180, you get to take 1:1 macro shots (WITH BETTER IMAGE QUALITY SCORES THAN ANYTHING BUT THE ZEISS), plus have the flexibility to take other shots, and have the reach to use natural light + the distance not to startle your subject.

Hope this finally sinks in ...


Dalantech wrote in post #17899358 (external link)
On a side note: I do have a wide angle converter lens that will allow me to use the MP-E 65mm pretty much out to infinity. Something that you'd might know how to do if you had more experience shooting with the lens...

Is that not an additional purchase, as I said?


Dalantech wrote in post #17899358 (external link)
There's just not enough light at 1x and higher to take action shots with natural light, that's why the folks who do it use a flash. If you had more experience shooting macro you might understand...

I do understand that, genius.

Which is why I articulated "a flash" as an added expense to consider when using the MP-E 65.

Must I sit down beside you, and read the words slowly, for you to comprehend what was actually said?


Dalantech wrote in post #17899358 (external link)
Seriously Jack that piece you wrote is so incredibly biased, and naive, it's not even remotely funny.

Seriously, John, your complaints show such an absolute density that it isn't even remotely funny.

There was, in fact, no bias at all.

At several points in the article, I invited the reader to re-shuffle the ratings, based on their own individual needs and shooting preferences.

How much more un-biased can I be?

That you can't yet understand this, despite multiple efforts to point your nose at the wording (here and on other forums) is tragic IMO ...

Jack




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,183 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2583
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 15, 2016 19:05 as a reply to  @ John Koerner's post |  #28

nice shots, i don't do a ton of insect photography with my mp-e yet so i'm still a little new to that area...i've also never really mounted mine to a tripod, as my rig before wasn't very compatible for that, so no way could i get away with your shutter speeds handholding...but i've got a new rig, and i'm looking forward to mounting it on a tripod...and maybe i'll turn the flash off for a few shots :)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner.
     
Feb 15, 2016 19:30 |  #29
bannedPermanent ban

DreDaze wrote in post #17899789 (external link)
nice shots, i don't do a ton of insect photography with my mp-e yet so i'm still a little new to that area...i've also never really mounted mine to a tripod, as my rig before wasn't very compatible for that, so no way could i get away with your shutter speeds handholding...but i've got a new rig, and i'm looking forward to mounting it on a tripod...and maybe i'll turn the flash off for a few shots :)

Most definitely, you would need slow shutter speeds (and therefore a tripod) to get away with natural light shots with the MP-E :)

However, with a flash (esp. with a diffuser) you can handhold and get some incredible images.

There are some guys (Kurt, for example) that have mastered the custom diffuser and get a very pleasing cast to their flash images.

This guy (external link) has probably the nicest diffuser setup I have seen for the MP-E 65.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
734 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Jun 2011
Location: San Dimas, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by John Koerner. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 15, 2016 19:50 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

Dalantech wrote in post #17899358 (external link)
Seriously Jack that piece you wrote is so incredibly biased, and naive, it's not even remotely funny.

John, here are some quotes from my article that you must have missed to believe I was "incredibly biased":

  • "Now, keep in mind, this is my list, based on my values. Your mileage may vary."

  • "However, another goal here is also to show each lens' strengths and weaknesses, when pitted next to the other, so that you can see which ones are strongest/weakest in the area(s) that are the most important to you."

  • "The idea here is to see which lens, across the board, fills as many of your "hot buttons" as possible (or to see which lens fills your unique, specific needs). For me, this is how it all breaks down:"

  • "In short, the Canon 100L is solely for hand-holding. If that is your gig, then get the lens, and you will love it."

  • "Having said all that, if you are into truly extreme macro photography, and if "the tiniest of arthropods" (or extremely-close arthropod portraits) form your main photographic interest, then please raise the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x all the way up to the top of this list, because within the specific macrophotographic purpose of obtaining images between 1x to 5x magnification, this lens is without peer in versatility within the commercial macro lens category."

Does that really sound "biased" to anyone ... or does it sound like I consider a multitude of perspectives other than my own? :-P

In short, John, you either didn't actually read my article, or (as I said) you have a density that doesn't allow you to fully comprehend what you read.

R.I.F. = Reading is Fundamental :lol:

I told the reader that the hierarchy was based on my style, and I invited the reader to carefully look at the stats (+ strengths/weaknesses) of the lenses listed, and to feel free to re-shuffle as they see fit. This is not "biased"; it is the polar opposite of biased.

It is sad that that so many people are so fast to "jump to conclusions," and "disagree as fast as they can," without actually taking the time (or having the ability) to understand what was actually said ... which often makes a friendly discussion all but impossible.

Jack



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

11,707 views & 8 likes for this thread
Macro Lens Comparison
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
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 gardenchefs
1174 guests, 343 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.