Which macro?

[Gaffer]

My kit is:

Canon D5 (35mm CCD)
Canon 100-400mm L
Canon 85mm f1.2 L
Canon 16-35mm L

This serve me pretty well, but I would like to dabble in macro.

The choices as I see it are:

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
This gives 1x magnification at 31cm

EF 180 mm f/3.5L Macro USM
This gives 1x magnification at 45cm.
A bit slower then the 100mm

EF 50 mm f/2.5 Macro
This only gives 0.5x magnification

MP-E65 f/2.8 1-5 x Macro
This gives a whopping 5x magnification at 24cm
This lens only does manual focus.

To make things simple, having looked at the prices, I'll say "Money no object" but I'm only going to buy one lens.

I think that the 50mm is straight out.
I think I would rather go for the longer length of the 180 over the 100 to give me a better chance to sneak up on the compulsary dragon fly without scaring it off. This also gives me the "L" lens.

That leaves a choice between the 180L and the MP-65

I've not done macro before, so I don't really know what I want, don't really know how to choose.

Would you go for the telephoto L or the 5X manual?

Andrew

 

[Gaffer]

As for the lens, depends really, if you doing lots of tripod still shots then the E65 for me.

Indoor/outdoor is a helpful comment. Not absolute, but a useful way to "position" them.

The extra magnification would be amazing, and manual focus won't be a problem since you are controlling the situation.

Yes. The idea of filling the width of frame with 7mm is impressive.

I can't put my finger on it but I get the vague impression that it would be a wierd lens to use. Does it do things in a strange way? The sort of thing I'm thinking of is, for example: Requiring that you decide the magnification you want first, then move the camera to a distance that suits that magnifiation, then focus.

If you are doing insects and outdoors, then the 180mm, but it's "only" F/3.5.

I get the impression that I will often be wanting as small an aperture as I can get away with anyway, Is that a fair assumption?

Andrew

 

[Gaffer]

MPE-65 all the way. You won't regret it!

Wow!

I said that I didn't know what I wanted to do, but you've cleared that up for me. I want to be able to take shots like that!

MPE-65 it is. And a Ring-Lite. And a tripod.

Thanks for your help.

Andrew

 

[Gaffer]

MPE-65 all the way. You won't regret it!

Well, I was at a major Canon stockist today...

I actualy went there to buy a 2x converter for the 100-400L, but I tried it out and quickly decided that it is the most dissapointing thing I've ever tried from Canon. Viewfinder image was poor. The Autofocus didn't work.

So, instead I walked out with a MPE-65.

It's a *wierd* bit of kit.

It starts off looking "a bit bulky" for 65mm. There is one control ring and it rotates a whopping 480 degrees as it pushes the front of the lens out to nearly three times the original length to zoom from 1x to 5x.

They said "manual focus" but there is no(*) focus ring. You move the camera to get the image in focus.

The distance to the focal point depends upon magnification:

1x 101mm
2x 63mm
3x 51mm
4x 44mm
5x 41mm

And getting in focus is no trivial matter. The depth of field at 5x is a quarter of a millimeter at 5x f/16. But at 5x, the effective aperture is ony f/96, so you'll be wanting to hold it very still...

I havn't managed to take a decent picture with it yet, but my good friend rilot just lent me a tripod, ringflash and remote release, so I hope to do something soon.

(*)That's not true. The magnification ring changes the focal length too, so by adjusting the magnification you can fine-tune the focus. Kinda like being able to focus by turning a zoom control. Wierd, I tell you...

Andrew

 

[Gaffer]

Really don't worry about using a tripod. It's very frustrating and I've only even had one photo work out whilst using one with this lens. Hand hold every time!

I was struggling with hand-holding.

For my first picture, I wanted to snap the pixels on my screen. Thought it would be easy because the screen comes with it's own illumination... Without a tripod, I was just resting the camera on a book. But the book wasn't stable enough - the vibration from my breathing and from my pulse was making the image jiggle around, let alone when I squeezed the trigger and the mirror started clattering.

I'll try again with a tripod, mirror lock and remote trigger.

Good luck! And make sure to post pictures.

Of course...

Andrew

 

[Gaffer]

Good luck! And make sure to post pictures.

Bingo!

http://www.tug.com/stuff/wasp_1920x1200.jpg

Kathleen (That's "Mrs Gaffer" to you...), spotted the dozy wasp on a stainless steel handrail on the Millenium bridge in newcastle this weekend. It didn't want to fly away, it only walked away when I was too intrusive with my lens. Took loads and loads of pictures at around 1x. Hand-held, with the ISO cranked up to 1600ASA - no flash.

Not perfect. Could have used more light to get a smaller aperture for more depth of field. But good enough to use for wallpaper on my laptop this week.

I think I'm going to enjoy this macro stuff...

Andrew

 

[Gaffer]

I like that! It's a good angle and nice composition too. What aperture did you have that set to? It looks like it might have been a bit high which might be why the wasp is a bit soft.

Does "high" mean "low f-stop number" ?

It was shot in program, which gave me 1/200 at f5.0 I was shooting in ambient light (no batteries in the flash) at 7pm, with the camera pushed to 1600 ASA.

The composition does look good but that is more by accident than design. Of the 40 frames that I took, this was the one with the best focus on the largest amount of the subject. It is cropped and resized to fit my laptop screen.

Andrew