Mpe-65 ??

bobw

Is it REALLY worth the money? I'm getting more and more interested in Macro and have been thinking about this lens but don't know if it is worth it. I have a 10-22, 24-105 and 100-400, plus a 1.4XTC. I also have a few extension tubes......so would the MPE-65 be a good addition?

pathfinder

I would first, suggest a good macro, like a 90mm f2.8 Tammie or a 105 Sigma, or a Canon 100 f2.8 or even a Tamron 180 f3.5 macro first, along with a set of good extension tubes. Learn to use the macro lenses with extension tubes, so that you learn to walk before you try to run.

Once you are regularly shooting at 1x to 2x lifesize, then you may want to move up to the MPE-65. It is a very dedicated lens, suitable only for macro. It wil also require a flash suitable for macro use, as it is almost always shot with flash, rather than ambient lighting.

The lenses I mentioned are all capable of being used for portraits and landscape shots since they are quite useful focal length lenses that can focus to infinity easily. I used a Tamron 90mm macro frequently for portraits when shooting film.

jrmyrnsm

If I were your position I might look into going with something like the 100mm 2.8 macro, its a lot more versitile since it will double as a conventional 100mm while the MPE-65 is manual focus and only a macro lens limiting its uses to extreeme macro and not much else. Heres a decent overview of the lense that is pretty straight forward about how it's limited in use. I've seen some amazing shots done with the 100mm and it is in my opinion a better lens to start macro with and if you find you need the larger-than-life magnification then look into the more specialized MPE-65. Good luck!

Zanotti

Interestingly enough the Canon 100mm macro lens is sold out a all known locations. Anyone know why?

Its been out at B&H for a few weeks.

Z

bobw

Thanks for the prompt replies. I think I'll check out the Canon 100 2.8 and the Tamron 90.