MPE-65 & MR-14EX or 100-400mmL?

I'm about due to get a new lens and have about $1,500 to spend. I had my heart set on the 100-400mml, but I've had a lot of time to think about it, and now I'm second guessing myself.

I shot an absolute ton of macro using my 100mm macro with a 2x extender and loved it, but feel that I want to be even closer. Looking at the pics in the macro forum has my mouth salivating over the MPE-65.

On the other hand, I have three boys that play little league baseball, we go to an airshow every year, to the zoo four or five times a year, and about a half dozen trips to an amusement park/water park. We also go to some parks, lakes, etc...plus some moon shots. I also take a ton of bird pics, mostly in my yard at the feeders (BlueJays, Cardinals, Hummingbirds, etc...). These are the reasons I was wanting the 100-400L.

So now the questions:

1 - Is the MPE-65 difficult to use without a tripod or rails?
2 - Is the MPE-65 going to give me noticeable improvement over my 100mm macro w/2x?
3 - Will the MR-14EX be a huge improvement over my 430EX II for macro?
4 - Is there anything else I would need with the MPE & MR setup that would set me back cash (Remember, I'm on a budget)?
5 -- How much of an improvement is the 100-400mmL over my 55-250 or the crappy 75-300? Are there any other benefits than the extra 150 (or 100) mm?

The difference, for me, using these lenses is this...for a long lens, I'll be mainly taking pictures of my family doing activities. This is pretty important, obviously. While I love macro, the MPE/MR combo may give me great macro shots, but they will be of insects & such, not my family.

*sigh* Any suggestions?

Thanks,

~Ace

Just a couple thoughts:

The difference between the 250mm(55-250...let's not even discuss that 75-300 ) you're getting now, and the 400mm(100-400) will not be as huge and noticeable, as the difference between your 100 macro +2x and the MP E65.

The dust-pump, as you stated, can do double-duty..and then some ( very versatile).

The MP E65 is a one-dimensional lens..period! It's sole purpose is macro. It's not a walkaround or portrait lens also, as the 100/2.8 USM.

I would definitely suggest the rails. Even using my 100/2.8 Macro USM w/2x+1.4x+68mm of tubes(~3:1)... it's just plain ridonkulous!!

Funny, those same two lenses are next on my list (but I'd opt for the MT-24EX).

But, sitting here thinking about... if I had a make a choice right now, I'd get the 100-400.

I've done the 100mm macro + tubes + 1.4X TC, and as much as I love seeing the bugs taken with the MP-E at 5:1 and have salivated over that lens... I think I'd go for reach (especially having just gone FF), for taking wild critters and birds in national parks, aircraft, and so on.

I'll be interested in which way you go.

Give this article a read, Ace. This guy's not particularly knowledgeable in photography, but he's a pretty smart dude nonetheless.
Though an old article, he tells his problems and solutions using the MP E65. Unfortunately, he's a cheapskate, and posts super-small images to cut down on bandwidth usage on his site.

Your kids only pass through this age and time in their life one time. The bugs will always be there

sas8888 wrote in post #15545406
Your kids only pass through this age and time in their life one time. The bugs will always be there

True enough, but not like he's going to miss out on shots, because he "only" has 250mm.

but he stated one of the reasons he wanted to get the 100-400 was his 3 boys. He already have the 100 macro.

1Tanker wrote in post #15545465
True enough, but not like he's going to miss out on shots, because he "only" has 250mm.

Thanks guys, and thanks for the link, Tanker! That's what scares me about the MPE-65, I shoot everything handheld. Getting an image in focus above 1x sounds nearly impossible

I was just thinking...if I could sell off my 55-250, 75-300, and 100mm macro, how much do you guys think that would bring me, maybe $700? At that amount, I could swing both, but the ring flash would have to be put on hold. Grrr...

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #15544956
......

So now the questions:

1 - Is the MPE-65 difficult to use without a tripod or rails?
2 - Is the MPE-65 going to give me noticeable improvement over my 100mm macro w/2x?
3 - Will the MR-14EX be a huge improvement over my 430EX II for macro?
4 - Is there anything else I would need with the MPE & MR setup that would set me back cash (Remember, I'm on a budget)?
5 -- How much of an improvement is the 100-400mmL over my 55-250 or the crappy 75-300? Are there any other benefits than the extra 150 (or 100) mm?..

1. yes, but it can be done.
2. Oh yea, not even in the same ballpark.
3. probably, but not as much as the MPE-65
4. A decent tripod.
5. Yes, though the crappy 75-300 does pretty well in good light. But clearly the 100-400 will out perform them both.

Sorry this doesn't make the decision easier as both lenses are a significant improvement.

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #15546226
Thanks guys, and thanks for the link, Tanker! That's what scares me about the MPE-65, I shoot everything handheld. Getting an image in focus above 1x sounds nearly impossible

I was just thinking...if I could sell off my 55-250, 75-300, and 100mm macro, how much do you guys think that would bring me, maybe $700? At that amount, I could swing both, but the ring flash would have to be put on hold. Grrr...

Sounds about right on Ace..as long as you sell them separately. You could sell the 75-300 and 100 macro right now and grab the MP E65. You can continue (hopefully) saving then maybe have enough (together with selling your 55-250) to buy the 100-400 by late spring/early summer..when the tele will be of more use.

I don't know about you, but i use the tele's less in winter, (unless getting shots of ice..i love ice). The MP E65: you can practice and use it indoors through this crappy weather; there will be no shortage of subjects (in a house) to play with..with that puppy.

Food for thought?

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #15544956
I'm about due to get a new lens and have about $1,500 to spend. I had my heart set on the 100-400mml, but I've had a lot of time to think about it, and now I'm second guessing myself.

I shot an absolute ton of macro using my 100mm macro with a 2x extender and loved it, but feel that I want to be even closer. Looking at the pics in the macro forum has my mouth salivating over the MPE-65.

On the other hand, I have three boys that play little league baseball, we go to an airshow every year, to the zoo four or five times a year, and about a half dozen trips to an amusement park/water park. We also go to some parks, lakes, etc...plus some moon shots. I also take a ton of bird pics, mostly in my yard at the feeders (BlueJays, Cardinals, Hummingbirds, etc...). These are the reasons I was wanting the 100-400L.

So now the questions:

1 - Is the MPE-65 difficult to use without a tripod or rails? yes. but if you're chasing bugs, then a tripod and rails is hard to use too.
2 - Is the MPE-65 going to give me noticeable improvement over my 100mm macro w/2x? defer to the above answer - though there was an article somewhere on the web that examined the resolution of the mpe vs the 100 at 1:1 and the mpe was not head an shoulder better
3 - Will the MR-14EX be a huge improvement over my 430EX II for macro? no. in general the shadows given by the mr-14x are not pleasing and it is considered better to go for the 24ex. with that said - thereare many many excellent shots with an OC speedlight and modifier. See LordV's setup in the macro section - he uses IIRC exclusively that system.
4 - Is there anything else I would need with the MPE & MR setup that would set me back cash (Remember, I'm on a budget)? depends on what macro subjects you want to shoot. but usually not. tripod. light modifier. off camera trigger? patience?
5 -- How much of an improvement is the 100-400mmL over my 55-250 or the crappy 75-300? Are there any other benefits than the extra 150 (or 100) mm? defer to the above answers

The difference, for me, using these lenses is this...for a long lens, I'll be mainly taking pictures of my family doing activities. This is pretty important, obviously. While I love macro, the MPE/MR combo may give me great macro shots, but they will be of insects & such, not my family.

*sigh* Any suggestions?

Thanks,

~Ace

answers in red above.
i am in a similar situation as what you wrote....i too am considering the mpe +24ex. but also other lenses. Thing that bothers methe most is the time that I assess it will take me to learn how to use the mpe correctly (i work many hours a week and have very little time for practice)
but - i will tell you - IMHO - if you KNOW that a lens will help you gain pictures of precious memories with your family better than what you have now - I would highly suggest that one first.

just by 1.5 cents

Another thought... While you mentioned quite a few uses for the big lens, you might want to consider how often the size will prevent it from being useful. Will you really be brining that monster to amusement parks with your kids? I dunno, for those type of events I would prefer a smaller camera, but that's just me.

Thanks again, guys! Hmm, I haven't even considered the time it will take to learn the MPE-65. As mentioned, I guess I could get a lot of practice indoors before Spring. Another thing, if I'm chasing bugs, the chance of me using the 65 to it's fullest potential is close to zero, but even shooting at 3x seems like it would be a pretty big improvement.

Tim da Man wrote in post #15546882
Another thought... While you mentioned quite a few uses for the big lens, you might want to consider how often the size will prevent it from being useful. Will you really be bringing that monster to amusement parks with your kids? I dunno, for those type of events I would prefer a smaller camera, but that's just me.

Last year I only took a long lens with me, and other than seeing some flowers & bugs, I never needed a shorter lens. I took hundreds of pics at the amusement parks, zoo, etc..., and the only thing that bummed me was having to do some cropping in post. I will lose some short distance going from 55mm to 100mm, though.

That would be a tough decision for me, too. I think if I already had the 100 macro, I'd probably go with the 100-400, but I have neither, so it would be a difficult choice. About the only comment I'd make is that most of the macro shooters prefer the MT-24 twin-light rather than the MR-14 ring-light.

Shooting the MP-E-65 is an art in itself but people do it. Look in the macro forum, Lord V has a sticky on shooting with this lens. Many people shoot it handheld. I am still learning the lens but I am having pretty good luck with handheld shots if I can brace my elbows on something or lean my body on something solid. A couple of things to know, the closer you get to 5X the darker the viewfinder becomes. This takes some getting used to, also your shooting distance will be from a minimum of one inch at 5X to a maximum distance of four inches at 1X. Depth of field at these magnifications is almost non existent. Many MP shooters use stacking software. There is no focusing ring, focusing is done by moving the lens back and forth.The MP-E 65 will give excellent quality if used properly. I can't really say if it gives more quality then the 100 macro, it is a different animal. I can't say that the ringlight would be necessary. Many MP shooters use a 430 EX or other single flash on a bracket. I would try that first before spending the money for a ringflash.As far as extras to buy, I can't think of anything other then a macro bracket . You can go crazy with rails and other gadgets but I would start with the basics and go from there. Many of the flash diffusers are home made affairs that cost nothing.Finally, the 100-400 is far superior to the two lenses you mentioned. As for which lens to get, your kids will be growing up and gone before you know it, bugs will be around forever.