MP-E 65 or 100L or 100 f/2.8+tubes?

Hey guys, sorry if this has been asked before, but i'm after some opinions...

I'm getting really into macro photography at the moment, and would love to buy a macro-dedicated lens to use on my 7D. I've been really inspired by Brian V, and notice he uses the MP-E 65 for his super macro fly and flower/dew-drop shots. I'm wondering, for the same price, to get excellent macro photographs, would it be more worthwhile to go an MP-E 65, 100L or the older 100 f/2.8 macro and a bunch of tubes? Is there any clear advantage to going one over the others (obviously I couldn't use the MP-E for anything other than macro...)? It's tough knowing exactly what to do - i'm only beginning macro photography, so want the least-limiting lens I can find...but don't know which this might be!

If you'd like to throw in a thought or opinion i'd be very appreciative (especially you, Brian!)...

Thank you in advance.

Tristan.

Hello Tristan, I was in the same boat last week and still don't know what the exact answer is but I got some good info from others and decided on the Tamron SPAF 90mm f2.8 Di Macro 1:1,,,,$399.95 after rebate with free shipping from Uniquephoto.com,they were a joy to deal with and have been in business since 1947.Tamron was one of the founders of the dedicated Macro so should have a jump start with functionality and I also am getting good reports that this is a really good portait lens.

Good luck in your search

dick

Although I never used a MPE-65, I'm pretty sure it will be damn hard to use for someone just starting macro.

I mean, I had to take my time to get used to the shallow depth of field of 1:1, I can't even imagine how hard it would be to start there and only be able to go up.

After I got comfortable with 1:1 I bought a set of ETs and once again I took my time to get used to 2:1. After a while, 1:1 seems just too wide, and all you want is more magn. Thats why I'll be using a reversed lens on top of everything to get me above 2:1 I'm not sure how it will be, its not just the extra magnification but also the working distance that is cut alot. I consider this my last step, its as close I can get from the "taste" of a MPE-65 and from there I'll either buy a MPE-65 or not.

No mater how much I love macro, having a macro lens (other then the MPE-65) allows you to do other things, like shooting any object bigger then 22mm, which would be impossible with the MPE-65.

To macro the L lens doesn't offer much in comparison with the old lens, it does for the other things, where IS is important and where a wide aperture is important, to macro they are both irrelevant, you use small apertures and either you use a tripod or a flash.

Also don't forget that equipment is just a portion of what makes a great macro photo. Composition and specially lighting is the difference between average and excellent. So i strongly advice you to invest in a flash (either ring or on a bracket)

If you haven't done any macro shooting before then I'd recommend you start with a normal 1:1 macro lens, then get some extension tubes and once you are happy you can shoot at 2:1 think about an MPE-65. It just takes a lot of practice to get used to shooting at higher magnifications.
Brian V.

Thanks for the suggestions guys...perhaps I will stick to a 1:1 macro lens, and then, as Warl0rd suggested, grab a set of extension tubes and try something larger. As I said, i've just been really, really inspired by your shots, Brian!

Anyway, here's a photo of a good old common house fly. Dead, yes, but I wasn't quick enough for anything living...(haha).

dicklaxt wrote in post #9170973
Hello Tristan, I was in the same boat last week and still don't know what the exact answer is but I got some good info from others and decided on the Tamron SPAF 90mm f2.8 Di Macro 1:1,,,,$399.95 after rebate with free shipping from Uniquephoto.com,they were a joy to deal with and have been in business since 1947.Tamron was one of the founders of the dedicated Macro so should have a jump start with functionality and I also am getting good reports that this is a really good portait lens.

Good luck in your search

dick

This is the route I went as well. I have a good friend who gave me rave reviews of the above-mentioned Tamron, and I spent a lot of time looking at comparison pics on every forum and website I could find. As much as I would love to have the 100mm L-glass Canon macro, I couldn't justify the price difference. In my viewing (and please note that I haven't done a side-by-side comparison of my own), the difference is small enough that I wasn't willing to shell out the extra.

That said, I have used the older Canon non-L macro lens that you mentioned, and it's a lot of fun. I suspect the L version is that but better, so you can't go wrong with it.

My very first lens purchase (aside from the kit lens) was the MP-E Magic Mole. Before I switched to digital most of my shots were mid ranged and the switch into the extreme macro world was definetly an exciting adventure. However I could see how going with a 100mm would be more conveinent and easier to get use to.

depends what macro subjects you are shooting. If you were mainly interested in subjects as small as ants i'd go straight for the MP-E65 but if you want to shoot the whole range of insects and get full body shots as well as close ups then a 100mm makes more sense. An MP-E cant take full body shots of most butterflies and Dragonflies especially when used with a 1.6 crop sensor like your 7D.