Canon Mp-E65

anyone splashed out on one or does the working distance put you off (not to mention the price £719):

http://www.vividlight.​com/articles/2914.htm

like to see some examples if you have.

http://www.pbase.com/c​ameras/canon/mp_e65_28​_macro

You thinking of getting one Racketman?
I've thought about it but can't convince myself it's necessary. It doesn't seem to have any advantage in the 1-2:1 range over macro + extension rings, I seldom (at the moment) feel the need to go over that especially as it tends to mean a tripod/macrostage etc. Only advantage I can think of is I assume it is fairly light?
I also assume (may be wrongly) that it has no advantage in aperture vs diffaction softening over normal macros as this seems to to be an absolute physical effect rather then design.

Brian V.

Can't imagine buying one myself - Just interested to hear people's experience. Seen some indifferent work with it on the web and some great shots that could have been taken with normal gear. The use of overwhelming ringflash at that distance creates an artificial if sometimes beautiful effect. I have sold a couple of p&s on e bay recently (at 5 times Jessops trade in prices) and have a rower selling. I plan to get the 20D upgrade when it comes and maybe the 400f5.6 for birds/sport.

Think I might be interested in the 20D replacement. I've been thinking along slightly different lines on other lenses- keep on wondering whether to get a Tokina 12-24 mm lens on the assumption I can get some of those amazing DOF pics you see with P&S macro shots, as well as having a normal wide angle lens.
Brian V.

I have the kit lens for fairly wide angle - not bad if stopped down. Cant justify a better wide for the amount of landscape type subjects I take. Got the brilliant Tamron 28-75 for walkabout (even better since having 350D recalibrated). As far as ultra wide goes I dont much like the distorted effect most posts show. Canon 10-22 would be another one to look at. Buying such a lens mainly for macro would be a novelty.

In my opinion, if you look for Microscopic details, go for one. If you look for artistic macro shots, hold on to normal lenses .

Sounds right. Stick with normal I think - becomes more 'scientific' after 2:1

Here are a couple of pics using it. I still prefer my 100mm.

Both are 100% crops. The small black bee is about half the size of a honey bee and the leaf hopper is less than 1/2 cm. I think both were taken about 2x since I didn't have a tripod and that's about all I can handhold.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Well it and you can certainly take excellent pics any particular reason for the preference of the 100mm macro lens?
Brian V.

I find the 100mm easier to work with. I almost always need to use flash with the 60mm even at 1:1. Could be just me, but I find the 100mm and macro twin lite better balanced on my camera than the 60mm.

You mean the 65 not 60 (which I have) I take it. I could see my ringflash being in danger of touching the subject at the highest magnification of the 65.
Those are nice photos - second one would be tough with my set up though others have managed good Planthopper images.

Sorry, did mean the 65. I totally understand about the working distance. I have frequently hit the plant the hopper is sitting on with the flash.