MP-E 65 vs 100mm Macro vs 180mm Macro

After seeing pictures...

I want all 3 =(

I dont know which way to go.

Now I also kinda regret selling my Kenko Extension tubes, because I wasnt aware I could use them in combination with a Macro lens to get omre magnification like the MP-E 65...

I thought extension tubes were only to make non macro lenses macro lenses... Stupid me.

OK, so first admit it, your a sick man (like the rest of us). Then come to reality and figure out what you'll do MOST. I own all Canon's USM macros, and the MP-E65.

I just sold my Markins ballhead and 85mm f/1.8, and am buying a 90mm TS-E, which I will connect with a 1.4xTC and 12mm extension tube, and do still life close-ups. I have given up trying to control depth of field with macro lenses and diffused powerful lighting.
I've got a feeling that the 90 TS-E, 1.4xTC, and Extension will give more close-up (not macro) creative power than any other combo because of DoF control. I'll let you know in 3 months, as I figure it will take me that long to learn how to use it, primarily in Tilt.

I can offer you two MP-E65 things from my experience:
1. It's hard to focus on an APS-C sensor cameras because the darker small viewfinder. Works much better on a 1-D Series or FF cameras. I use it with 1-DMkII
2. In some ways MP-E65 is more useful for abstract creative graphic arts photography than macro as I know and do macro. Creatively photographing bubbles in liquids, abstract surfaces, prismatic reflections, etc.

If a person owns no macro lens, the 100 Canon USM is the one to get first.
The 60 is stellar for pocket carrying in field with no tripod or doubling for indoor portraits,
and the 180 is for increased working distance, absolutely blurring the background, using above f/22 when needed, from a tripod.

As recommended by POTN's stellar macro man, LordV, I took the tripod collar OFF the MP-E65, bought the $27 part to move it to the Canon 100mm macro. When I use the MP-E65 on the rails, the collar sets its position back too far. It's not heavy, and works better with the camera body on the rail, not the lens anyway. So, the collar on my 100 macro either cost me $27, or $727 depending on how one views this situation.

Does all this crap make sense?
Jack

ok I admit it.. ive lost my freakin mind when it coems to camera gear...

Its making sence to me... You think a 100mm Macro with a set of Kenko tubes will hold me off? Untill I NEED something more.

I was hoping to get some decent MP-E 65 style results with a 100mm Macro and a set of Kenko tubes...

Think its possible?

I love the abstract creative graphic arts shots the MP-E 65 can produce.. its more my style photography, but im afraid I wont put it into good use since I dont have good rail tripod head system to make it easy to use...

Consider this...
The 65mm provides 1X-5X* macro and distance as close as 0.24m (9")
The 100mm provides 1X macro at distance as close as 0.31m (12")
The 180mm provides 1X macro at distance as close as 0.48m (19")

*Note that format does not change mag factor for any of these lenses, it merely changes how much or how little of the subject will fit on the frame!

In other words the difference between the 100mm and the 180mm is merely the shooting distance. (Since DOF is so shallow at macro distance, there is no true benefit to f.2.8 vs. f/3.5 max aperture, since you don't shoot at that aperture.) I would choose the 180mm for just a bit more shooting distance, given the choice of the two (never having handled either one...there might be other reasons to choose one over the other...have you looked at photozone.de tests?).

The 65mm provide glorious magnification even without those extension tubes.

If you have never shot with a dedicated macro lens you will definitely want to avoid starting with the MP E 65. It is a difficult lens to use and I have found it dark in the viewfinder even on the full frame bodies. Granted it is a great lens but not for the novice. If you do eventually get this lens you will want to get the MT24 EX speedlight. I would definitely start with the Canon 100mm macro. It is an excellent lens, fairly cheap as macros go and will double as an extremely sharp portrait lens. To try and answer your question of difference in lenses, if you are shooting insects you will want all of the working distance you can get. A 180mm lens will give you about a foot of distance and a little more when used with a 1.4 teleconverter. Anything shorter will make shooting these creatures more difficult

BTW, the darkness of the 65mm in the viewfinder is fully a function of the very high magnification possible with this lens! If you put all three at 1x mag, the 180mm would be slightly darker due to its f/3.5 max aperture. The effective f/stop of the lens is determine by the magnification factor, which increases with distance between the optic and the focal plane. Since the 65mm goes to 5x, it will certainly be darker because its effective aperture is diminishing in light transmission as the magification goes higher.

So im guessing im not getting MP-E 65 type performance off a set of Tubes + a 100mm Macro?

Im trying to figure out if its even worth keeping the Kenko Tubes, if I plan on buying a 100mm Macro Lens

I own the 100mm f2.8 and have borrowed the MP-E 65 and 180mm. The MP-E is a single-use, dedicated work of art that requires a good bit of skill and patience. Although I'd covet it I can't justify spending the money on it when I can accomplish the same thing at a lower price. The 180mm is a joy to use, the working distance for 1:1 gives you a lot of freedom. It's heavy, bulky and doesn't serve well for any other purpose (although not so much as the MP-E).

When you're outside wandering around the 100mm f/2.8 is ideally what I'd have with me. The MP-E 65mm is too finiky and the 180mm is just too dang big'n'heavy. When I need a larger ratio than 1:1 I'll use tubes, TC's or reverse mounts. My shots come out as sharp as they would with the MP-E or 180mm. If you're shooting any ratio higher than 1:1 you need tripod and slide rail at the least. If I can add tubes or reverse a lens for <1:1 and have a lens that is very portable and usable for >1:1 in the field I think that's a winner.

Yes, I covet the MP-E and 180mm macro, but I'm able to accomplish the same thing for a lot less money with the
100mm f/2.8 + tubes/1.4TC or a reversed lens. It may be helpful to know that the MP-E is limited to macro and the 180mm macro doesn't really shine for any subject past 2'. The 100mm macro is suitable for subjects past 3ft, but I, personally, have an issue with it's AF. Others have stated they find the AF on the 100mm macro usable.

Cataclysmcow,

Thanks for the reply. 100mm Macro seems like a sure winner to me. I just have to make the decesion to keep or sell my Kenko Tubes. Im trying to see if its something that can be of use with this lens, as I didnt not enjoy using it with my 70-200 lens. Nevertheless, the tubes worked.

The 180mm L Macro is in a leage of its own. Ive seen some shots from near and far. Bird in flight to be specefic. And ive seen it excell in both.

Keep the tubes. You may use them on the macro.

And even if you don't use them on a macro lens, you can use them with conventional lenses simply to permit them to focus a bit closer than otherwise possible with the helical focusing threads in the lens. (For example, I had used a short extension tube with my Bronica ETRSi to permit me to use a 150mm or 250mm lens for very tight headshots, where the native lens only permitted head and shoulders shots.)

StealthLude,
I second keep the tubes!
I find the Kenko tubes work great with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 lens to give 2:1 macro, also makes my Canon 2xTC usable for up to 4:1 macro