Is my Canon 100mm mkII A Dud?

Or is it me, or indeed, am I expecting too much from it?

So, i've thought since i've had it, that it does not appear crisp at all close-up. I've seen so many great macro images taken with this lens but I just think mine are 'off'

I'm not sure if this will translate correctly to this post, but here's an image I took in the garden just now and literally just converted to jpeg and uploaded to Flickr.

If I zoom into it at all in Lightroom, it just looks blurred whereas I would expect a really crisp close-up.

I thought maybe that the lens may need calibration, but then surely that would just mean that another part of the image would be sharper than the rest, but this just doesn't appear shar.

Would appreciate your thoughts please

Settings were:
100mm
f/20
1/4
100 ISO
Flash with diffuser at 1/8th power
Tripod used

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jc2​zVn

It's your shutter speed. Minimum should be 1/100. Also there's no Mk II of this or non-L version.

gossamer88 wrote in post #19078798
It's your shutter speed. Minimum should be 1/100. Also there's no Mk II of this or non-L version.

Ah, apologies, I did mean Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens

Interesting with the shutter speed. Is this because it's a prime 100mm lens?

What's the difference between me shooting something at min 1/100 and taking a shot with say a 16-35mm lens. Would that be the same, in min 1/16th?

Thanks very much for your reply

Here's a second shot taken

Settings were:
100mm
f/25
1/180th
1600 ISO
Flash with built-in diffuser pointed upwards at an angle, at 1/8th power
Tripod used

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jc8​J6h

Shooting at f22 and f25 is going to hurt sharpness due to diffraction issues. If you want that sort of depth of field you may have to resort to focus stacking. Try shooting at f11 to see if the sharpness improves, then deal with the DOF issues.

tuttifrutti wrote in post #19078801
Ah, apologies, I did mean Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens

Interesting with the shutter speed. Is this because it's a prime 100mm lens?

What's the difference between me shooting something at min 1/100 and taking a shot with say a 16-35mm lens. Would that be the same, in min 1/16th?

Thanks very much for your reply

No worries. The rule of thumb, even though you used a tripod, is to match the shutter speed with the focal length.
1/100 / 100mm, 1/50 / 50mm. Nothing to do with prime or zoom.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19078821
Shooting at f22 and f25 is going to hurt sharpness due to diffraction issues. If you want that sort of depth of field you may have to resort to focus stacking. Try shooting at f11 to see if the sharpness improves, then deal with the DOF issues.

Excellent point about diffraction.

I understand wanting to use a small aperture to maximize DOF, but as mentioned, as the aperture gets smaller, the light starts to diffract and that shows up as blurriness. Glancing at a MTF chart shows the lens does best at around f/5.6 (f/4 ~ f/8 are nearly the same) and degrades from there.

Try a couple shots at F/8 keeping the shutter as fast as you can but minimally at 1/100. Either compensate with more light or bump the ISO. More light is preferable. If you need a lot more DOF, that's where stacking comes in.

Thanks everyone, for your advice.

I'm understanding this a bit more now.

I've just knocked out a couple of f/11 images so i'll see how they look in a bit then go from there.

I may try a few different focal spots on a that leaf again at f/8 or so, and merge them in Lightroom and see how that looks.

Thanks again all

You can shoot at F11 with that lens and the results should be acceptable. Gotta get that flash pointed right at the subject and use a decent diffuser. Better still if you get it off of the camera and out toward the end of the lens. Motion can amplify diffraction softening, and it's a myth that the flash is always going to freeze all the motion in the scene. If I can get results like this at over 2x and F11 you should be able to shoot at 1x without any issues:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (over 2x) + a diffused MT-26EX-RT with a Kaiser adjustable flash shoe on the "A" head (the key), E-TTL metering, -1/3 FEC, second curtain sync). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2j7F​CNk

Sorry to hijack the thread and go tangential to the main topic, but I saw this, and am so curious that I just can't help myself - I have to know!
.

Dalantech wrote in post #19078901
.
I will add that for flash based macro a 100mm lens in not optimal. You would have been better off with the Canon EF-S 60mm and a set of extension tubes.
.

.
I find this statement very interesting. . And I know there must be truth in it because you're the one who said it, and your macro work is phenomenal.

So, would you be able to explain why a 60mm macro lens with extension tubes is better than a 100mm lens?

Is this always the case, or just when using flash?

Would it be different if one were using a ring light instead of using a traditional flash with a diffuser?

I am asking all of this because I want to equip myself with some very basic macro gear and start doing a little macro on the side. . And I am not really interested in doing macro of insects or other live subjects; more about non-living things such as the textures of things like wood, bark, fungi, feathers of dead (roadkilled) birds, etc.

Thanks

.

That's a lovely image John.

Thanks for the reply. To be honest, I'm only just playing at macro right now but do think that if I have what is renowned as one of the best 1/1 macro lens, I should be getting much better images.

I am now starting to understand that this is much more of an art form than I originally thought.

Lots more spec and settings to think about than normal.

I didn't even give the Canon 60mm with extension tubes a thought. Why do you think that would have been better?

Also, any recommendations on a decent diffuser? I've seen plenty of cheap ones and wouldn't really know where to start for best?

Interesting - went down to f/11 and 1/160th and very pleased with the result considering i've cropped it quite heavily to see how it looked in close

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jce​BRv

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19078955
Sorry to hijack the thread and go tangential to the main topic, but I saw this, and am so curious that I just can't help myself - I have to know!
.

.
I find this statement very interesting. . And I know there must be truth in it because you're the one who said it, and your macro work is phenomenal.

So, would you be able to explain why a 60mm macro lens with extension tubes is better than a 100mm lens?

Is this always the case, or just when using flash?

Would it be different if one were using a ring light instead of using a traditional flash with a diffuser?

I am asking all of this because I want to equip myself with some very basic macro gear and start doing a little macro on the side. . And I am not really interested in doing macro of insects or other live subjects; more about non-living things such as the textures of things like wood, bark, fungi, feathers of dead (roadkilled) birds, etc.

Thanks

.

For flash based macro work you really need to get the flash/diffuser as close to the subject as possible to get good specular highlights and to keep the flash duration to a minimum (easier to freeze motion). You can light any subject with any light source no matter how you use it. But if you want to get as much detail as possible then the flash/diffuser has to be close. Even the angle between the light source, subject, and sensor can impact the level of detail and the determine if the shot will look flat or 3D. You wouldn't think that the difference in working distance between a 60mm lens and a 100mm lens would make a difference, but it does (I've shot macro at both focal lengths).

Subject pops out of the frame...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jbF​kdb

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jbc​MMN

tuttifrutti wrote in post #19078956
That's a lovely image John.

Thanks for the reply. To be honest, I'm only just playing at macro right now but do think that if I have what is renowned as one of the best 1/1 macro lens, I should be getting much better images.

I am now starting to understand that this is much more of an art form than I originally thought.

Lots more spec and settings to think about than normal.

I didn't even give the Canon 60mm with extension tubes a thought. Why do you think that would have been better?

Also, any recommendations on a decent diffuser? I've seen plenty of cheap ones and wouldn't really know where to start for best?

It's due to the working distance. You wouldn't think that 5cm (2 inches) would be a big deal, but the closer you get the flash/diffuser to the subject the better the diffusion and the shorter the flash duration (easier to freeze motion). Macro lenses in the 100mm range are a Jack of all trades, but a master of none. For flash based macro the working distance works against you, and for natural light shooting you'll wish you had more room.

In my experience with flash diffusion, working with macro twin flashes that are brutal point sources, it's best to use several layers of thin diffusion material than using a single thick one. You want to force the light to spread out, and not just block it. Here's a video of how I diffuse my flash, and it might give you some ideas:

tuttifrutti wrote in post #19079015
Interesting - went down to f/11 and 1/160th and very pleased with the result considering i've cropped it quite heavily to see how it looked in close

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jce​BRv redlily by ***tuttifrutti***, on Flickr

Much better!