Macro lenses, help me select?
I have almost purchased one or the other of these lenes a few times in the past, but i then just talk myself out of it....
Canon:
$450 Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens
$1280 Telephoto EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Autofocus Lens
I really want to dive into this area, but i dont want to under buy or over buy. (if renting was not so much $ i would just rent and findout myself)
I did get some Kenco tubes, but i dont want to have to get a inch away from the subject with the lens...so im asking how are these macro lenses used compared?, meaning how far from the subject can i get when photographing?
my main subjects are flowers (small mountain flowers). i will likely never photography any insects ever.
would the 180mm enable me to not need to deal with my own shadow all the time...would the same be the case for the 100mm?
I would really really like to shoot handheld, do you think there will ever be a "IS" macro....or it that laughable? "tripods will allways be necessary to get clean images!"??? or will these two lenses in great light give me the sharp results im after? or again is a tripod my only option?(im sure i can find this out on my own once i start, but i thought i would ask as to prepare my idea of what im getting into)
anyway, end point is this:
i want the best IQ period....(and best boken too)
what are your thoughts to help me in decision?
let me ask?, is the "L" as important? or is the 2.8 more important?
am i just a lost cause?
:help
Canon:
$450 Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens
$1280 Telephoto EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Autofocus Lens
I really want to dive into this area, but i dont want to under buy or over buy. (if renting was not so much $ i would just rent and findout myself)
I did get some Kenco tubes, but i dont want to have to get a inch away from the subject with the lens...so im asking how are these macro lenses used compared?, meaning how far from the subject can i get when photographing?
my main subjects are flowers (small mountain flowers). i will likely never photography any insects ever.
would the 180mm enable me to not need to deal with my own shadow all the time...would the same be the case for the 100mm?
I would really really like to shoot handheld, do you think there will ever be a "IS" macro....or it that laughable? "tripods will allways be necessary to get clean images!"??? or will these two lenses in great light give me the sharp results im after? or again is a tripod my only option?(im sure i can find this out on my own once i start, but i thought i would ask as to prepare my idea of what im getting into)
anyway, end point is this:
i want the best IQ period....(and best boken too)
what are your thoughts to help me in decision?
let me ask?, is the "L" as important? or is the 2.8 more important?
am i just a lost cause?
:help
Aaron Nelson
0
Comments
The 100 is also a great portrait lens, I use it frequently at weddings. Rarely leaves the bag. Mine is also very sharp.
Also my preference is always to go for 2.8 over L. The increase in lighting conditions you can shoot in is worth everything for me since I am an all over the map subject person.
facebook
photoblog
Quarks are one of the two basic constituents of matter in the Standard Model of particle physics.
105 macro ....12.3 inches
180 macro.....18.1 inches
Which should you buy depends on what else the lens will be doing for you....as mentioned above they will make great portrait lenses and in wedding work they can get fantastic close ups of the rings and such....
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review
Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX macro DG
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/301-sigma-af-105mm-f28-ex-macro-dg-lab-test-report--review
Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/270-tokina-af-100mm-f28-at-x-pro-d-macro-canon-review--test-report
Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review
Of these I will be purchasing the Tamron in my near future.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
anyway, ive been reading some reviews and such, but now i just ran into the flash issue.
where does it end? how important is a flash when there is great light on a flower? (flower photographers? is this where you chime in and say, you cant do it right without a flash!??)
i think im back to where i started....
Nikon D200 with MB-D200
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
Tamron 90mm SP Di Macro
Sigma 18-50mm
Sigma AF 70-200mm 2.8 DG APO HSM
No idea how to use them but learning more everyday.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/221/cat/30
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/180/cat/30
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
I like my 100/2.8. The working distance is decent. Manufacturers list their closest focussing distance from the film plane to subject istead of front element to subjuect. As Art said, Sigma says 12.3. My Canon says 12.0, which is misleading. It's more like 6.5" since you have to subract the length of the lens itself from their figure. Thats bottomed out at 1:1 though, for 3 - 4" diameter flowers you'll have 2 feet or so.
I wouldn't be concerned about bokeh. Even at aps of f16 you still get lots of creamy blur up close. As stated above, at wider aps like 5.6 it makes a great portrait lens.
Be prepard for having to bump up the iso up close in natural light. Macro needs lots of light.
These aren't the best pics, just giving an idea of the bokeh at the distances and aps you'd be using.
F6.3, iso 400, and still only a 1/40 ss in pretty good light. 6.3 up close gets lots of blur
F8. Even though I'm a good two foot away at f8 there's still a very narrow area in focus in the next two pics
It can be used without a flash, but much more difficult in less than stellar light. Flash is always your friend if used right. For brighter colored flowers you'll be fine natural light only so long as you don't go nuts narrowing the ap. For dark flowers you'll probably have to compromise and shoot wider or higher iso than optimal, unless you have plenty of sunlight.
i find this greatly helpful!
If you ever have any doubts about your camera's ability to get super sharp photos, they will disappear when you get this lens.
Link to my Smugmug site
Not familiar with US prices, but I'd be surprised if you can't buy a 100macro (of any decent make) + a Tamron 180 macro (or alternative) - for similar / same price as a Canon 180 macro.
I bought one (T180) earlier this yr (to complement my old non-usm Canon 100mm) - and it's worked fine.
Whatever you get, ensure it's got a tripod ring - or you have some other convenient means of changing orientation - if not hholding.
Flash - definitely useful for when ambient isn't enough - but an interesting ball-game in its own right re placement / diffusion.
Out of interest I decided to mess around with a 70 - 200 f4L I recently bought (used) + 72mm of extension tubes.
@ 70mm ... 22mm hfov @ 2.5in working distance (object to front element)
@ 200mm ... 35mm hfov @ 17.5in wd.
Considering you don't intend taking pics of stuff that can run / fly away, then 100mm will prob be fine ... but I'd suggest you also consider adding a set of extension tubes (using all 3 will inexpensively get you to 2:1 ) and a 1.4 extender (if not already got) as this'll give a little bit of extra reach / mag?
(Can't use the extender without an extension tube, btw - because of the protruding front element - but even the 12mm is ok)
Knowing how sod's law works, there'll always be a situation where you find something where only a 180'd do the job, however
pp
Flickr
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Since you do not anticipate critters the 100 should be fine for what you wish to do.
Hand holding the 100 for close-up photography isn't a big problem for many people, hand holding for true 1 to 1 macro can get a bit more interesting. If you are not clear on the difference between close-up and macro there is a book you should read....... Closeups in Nature by John Shaw. It is the macro photography bible. Amazon has a nice price on it.
There are ways to make hand held macro images but with flora your best best is a rock solid tripod with a gear driven macro rail.
http://4mallko.smugmug.com
retardstrength.net
i am leaning toward the 100mm for price.
i am leaning toward the 180mm based on this review, looking at the background differences :
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-180mm-f-3.5-L-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx
and im also starting to investigate the Sigma 150mm
i really dont think im going to go wrong with any choice now seeing what you all have said and posted. btw, beautiful work Scott!
i do have a set of ext tubes, i tried them out on my 70-200 but i did not like to get so close...bending over is hard, my knees dont do as well with sharp rocks, and im half blind.....:D
so i guess its no different with even the 180mm...im still going to need to get down, and with a tripod to get good results....
so, i guess its down to "do i want to spend an extra grand on the 180mm for that type of BG in my wildflower shots?"
if i were to do more indoor stuff there is no question i would get the 100mm...
Heres a question:
based on that review and the example pics he used i wonder...
if i am shooting a photograph of a wild flower that is 6 inches off the ground and im doing it angled down a bit, the background is going to be say...12 - 18 inches away. will i see as big of a difference in BG bokeh as we do in those pics in the review in which the background is many feet away....???
so i guess its no different with even the 180mm >>
Welcome to the world of macro
Working distance - with the T180 (dunno about the EF180) is actually less than the 70-200 (+ tubes) @200 for the same fov.
For the same fov (35mm)
T180 wd (subject to front element) is 14in
70-200 + 72 mm ext @ 200 is 17.5 in
<< spend an extra grand on the 180mm for that type of BG >>
Quick answer - a few mins in ps'd do the job - and be cheaper
Another option would be to open up, take several shots and stack them = more dof on a sharper image with blurred bg ... and still cheaper.
<< hand holding for true 1 to 1 macro can get a bit more interesting.>>
Couldn't agree more.
pp
A situation where I couldn't have got the same pic with the 100 because of physical constraints that would've spooked the subject. (> 1:1)
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5060&highlight=
Flickr
ive been lurking and reading about this for the past few months and feel i would need a much much better tripod setup to do the "stacking"....
on the mountain im sure i would have trouble just getting one good shot between the wind, earthquakes, and me hitting the tripod....
here is one i did with my ext tubes and canon 70-200 f2.8L.... handheld....laying in the sand.....
i thought if i were to get a macro lens ..., 1, it would be less clumbersome than the 70-200 with tubes.
2, i would get better shutter speeds and IQ, 3, i would just look better...4, and i could get further from the subject...
how bad of a rookie attempt is that?
I have a written several threads here on dgrin about macro lenses. I am sure you can google several of them quickly, There are several links in this post also - http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=53927&postcount=5 (Some of the links no longer work, but the last several do)
My view of macro lenses is a bit different than a lot of posters. I think you should begin by stating what you wish to photograph. Then choose a focal length to match your needs. They are almost all excellent lenses. The longer lenses will have shallower depth of field. This can be an asset or a liability, depending what you are shooting and at what distance.
The 50mm f2.5 macro is cheap, small, light, and easy to carry. (Sharp too, and can shoot lndscapes as well like this one - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/405018728_CgdsX-XL.jpg. Marc carries it as well - I picked up the idea from him ) It will be at its best for stationary, relatively flat objects.
The 90 -100mm macros from Canon, Sigma, and Tamron are all excellent optics. They give more remove from the subject than the 50-60mm macros, but have less DOF. The Canon 100, the Tamron 90, and the Sigma all have excellent reputations. They are bigger and heavier than the little nifty 50 f2.5 though.
The 180mms from Canon and Tamron are very, very sharp. Larger, heavier, slower to focus, but with great bokeh. Cost more too!
The Sigma 150 f2.8 is somewhat unique - fast, very sharp, but has a switch that needs to be changed to change focusing distances - no problem with inanimate objects, but very annoying for shooting mobile bugs.
My macro collection includes the Canon 50mmf2.5, the Canon 100 f2.8, the Tamron 180 f3.5 and the Sigma 150 f2.8 so I have no axe to bear one way or the other. I have images from all of them in my macro galleries here - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Animals Just chjeck the exif to see which one was used. I tend to favor the Tamron 180 when shooting in my own backyard. But I carry the 50f2.5 if I am hiking......
I used the Tamron 90mm years ago for 35mm film and it was always amazing for its clarity.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Back to the OPs quest for a macro, I can vouch for the sigma as a wicked lens, but I'm not sure it fits, particularly if you're not looking for bugs. Already at 150mm handholding is tricky to say the least.
As for the stack attempt (?) Aaron, if that's a stack, it looks damn good! I can only see a tiny hint of something going on in the bokeh on the far left on the focus plane, but so minor that I'm not sure it's a stack artifact. I've messed around a tiny bit with stacking, and have some idea what to look for. So let me repeat, if that's a stack, it's so good I wouldn't have guessed.
i was very very close and didnt like that. so this is why im wanting the 180mm......but man its twice as much as the 100mm.!!!
i think the advice on using post processing to blur my BG further in my flower shots using a 100mm is good advice, but then i think...? is the extra cost worth not needing to do all the PP?.....i have a hard enough time finding time in doing PP.....and im lazy too....
(I'd assumed close-ups, rather than 'true' macro (1:1 or greater) from your initial comment about 'small' flowers)
<< very very close >>
What focal length on the 70-200 were you using?
As I said in a previous post, for a 35mm fov, the 70-200 (f4 in my case), with 72 mm tubes was providing a greater working distance than my Tamron 180 macro.
17.5 in for 70 - 200 (@200)
14in for T180 macro
Being a Brit, I've no idea what dia the coins are in the pic - but if they're 25mm, you've got a fov of approx 75mm.
Is this is the case, mag is (approx) half life size (1:2) with a FF body, or approx third life size (1:3) with a 1.6 crop body (as I use - 20D)
Just out of curiosity I did a quick check with the 70 -200 @ 200 (with single 36mm tube) for wd for this 75mm fov ... it was 32 inches
<< is the extra cost worth not needing to do all the PP?.....>>
How much of this sort of stuff do you intend doing?
<< and im lazy too >>
Aren't we all
... but if a side issue of this also translates into 'lack of patience' too ... you're in for a fun time with macro, methinks
Tbh, I'd suggest saving your money and playing around a bit more with what you've got, for a start.
pp
Flickr
i want to do everything...macro, close-ups...of flowers,
feathers, sand, whatever...
i just know im not going to do insects of any kind because they really really give me the creeps....i might do butterfly wings...but thats it...
anyway,
I sold the 70-200 2.8L....and my camera too....(a canon 5D)
im waiting on the 5D2 so i cant test anything now...
i do have a 24mm T/S L that ive heard can be good at close-ups, also have the 24mm - 105L....and the tubes still...
but using those lenses with tubes @ f16 i will have very slow shutter speeds compared to a 100mm macro @ f16 ???? right?? i understand the tubes cause the image to be greater/larger on the sensor so the shutter speeds need to be slowed down to compensate for the lack of light...
true?
the coin shot focal length i have no idea......maybe its on the exif? maybe 70mm ??
as for how much i will be using a macro?...im sure i will use it every time i go anywhere. at least once everytime out....
I have both a 100mm f/2.8 and a 180mm f/3.5 macro. I find myself reaching for the 100mm more often. It's handier, smaller and more likely to stay in my gearbag. I can handhold it easier and it's easier to follow the bug/lizard/cat with a shorter lens (yeah..I know, I need more practice chasing the cat).:D
I bought the 180mm for reasons similar to yours, to get more reach and less background clutter, better bokah. I have much to learn with that lens.
You might be interested in having a shufties at this, then ...
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5554&highlight=
Charlie hasn't put a scale bar on these pics, but (if my maths is correct), the fov of the 2nd shot (with the lens mentioned) is about 0.6mm
Pics probably done with this setup / rig - note that the (Olympus) focus block used goes down to 1 micron increments for stacking ...
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2825
Maybe visit the macro forum here and have a look at some of Brian's (LordV) info / tuts re the other Qs ?
pp
Flickr
Part of the secret of macro ( hand held anyway ) is to shoot with one or more strobes, so that shutter speed is relatively insignificant. This can be a standard 430ex or 580ex or a more dedicated macro style flash attachment. Mounting parts can be purchased at the tripod users favorite site - www.reallyrightstuff.com
FWIW, I prefer my Tamron 180 for butterflies and bugs a great deal.
Shooting macro by ambient light is working with two hands tied behind your back.....
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I ended up getting the newest Sigma 150mm 2.8 and really can't complain, the sharpness seems just as sharp and many of my L lenes.
It does shoot warmer than I expected, but an easy fix in LR using the sync feature.
The 150mm range is good but when I want to use it for Panos the light fall off is really hard to match up for stitching the images together...at times Ive been able to pull it off in post, but found its not worth the work....
Otherwise I love the lens for what I bought it for! Marco / Close-up & single 150mm framed shots....
Like you I have eyed that Canon 180 for several years, but my Tamron 180 is very sharp and meets my needs so far.
Do you have an EOS ETTL flash and an Off Camera cord for it? You will find these items VERY useful with macro shooting. We can play with them in April.
The little 50mm f2.5 macro is a great field lens if you are not shooting bugs - small, light and cheap. What's not to like? I always carry it with me in the field.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Pathfinder, Well I've been playing around with a 430EX II / OC-E3 cord / extending adjustable arm/ mini- softbox / setup, and I still can't get it right... most of the time I just go back to natural lighting and get whatever I get....
So I plan on a full blown workshop from you:D
Last April @ Toroweap the Cactus was in bloom also fire crackers, and some little white flowering plants... I hope its all out again when we are there!