MP-E 65mm Test Drive - Jumping spider at 7x!!!!

sirsloop

Ok, so first things first... this lens is like outrageously hard to use anything over like 3x. I'm talkin your entire frame is taken up by like a 2x3mm area at 7x. (literally). At any rate...I borrowed the lens w/ twin flash setup just to mess around over the weekend. Anyways... 65mm MP-E plus a 1.4x teleconverter gets your 7x!

So first off... this is what we are shooting at. This is a TINY jumping spider which is about as big as a dime is thick. Its probably like 1mm x 1mm... like a touch larger than the "S" in states on the dime. I barely didnt see it when I walked inside but it happened to move as I was opening my door. BTW, this was taken with my 35/2 and cropped down just to show size reference.




I think this is about 3x-ish with the 65mm without the TC, uncropped.




Then it gets hairy...lol. The little guy stopped moving around so I could get a clean shot of him. UNCROPPED!!



and another 7x uncropped...



Now i'm not sure why these look a bit soft. I was shooting f/16 (completely stopped down) with the 65mm. I guess at this level you are really pushing the resolution limits of the lens? I mean this is just outrageously small blown up to nearly the size of a XTi sensor...lol. The bottom right is a bit soft cause there was web there... but the rest was clean

Maestro

Wow. Now that is some macro photography. Nice shootin'.

Skippy

sirsloop wrote:

Ok, so first things first... this lens is like outrageously hard to use anything over like 3x. I'm talkin your entire frame is taken up by like a 2x3mm area at 7x. (literally). At any rate...I borrowed the lens w/ twin flash setup just to mess around over the weekend. Anyways... 65mm MP-E plus a 1.4x teleconverter gets your 7x!

So first off... this is what we are shooting at. This is a TINY jumping spider which is about as big as a dime is thick. Its probably like 1mm x 1mm... like a touch larger than the "S" in states on the dime. I barely didnt see it when I walked inside but it happened to move as I was opening my door. BTW, this was taken with my 35/2 and cropped down just to show size reference.

I think this is about 3x-ish with the 65mm without the TC, uncropped.
Then it gets hairy...lol. The little guy stopped moving around so I could get a clean shot of him. UNCROPPED!!
and another 7x uncropped...
Now i'm not sure why these look a bit soft. I was shooting f/16 (completely stopped down) with the 65mm. I guess at this level you are really pushing the resolution limits of the lens? I mean this is just outrageously small blown up to nearly the size of a XTi sensor...lol. The bottom right is a bit soft cause there was web there... but the rest was clean

Now that's an interesting experiment.
Have you tried it with a bug that is larger than the jumping spider ?
The magnification is quite amazing.

I'm guessing you were hand holding?

Wonder what that shot would have turned out like if you used a Macro Slider ???

Thanks for sharing your experiment Sirsloop .... Skippy
.

sirsloop

5x, no TC, f/7.1... a bit sharper but crazy small DOF...

sirsloop

ok... if this wasnt crazy enough... here's something that may peak all of your interest!!

($900 and change) MP-E 65mm vs ($24.99 - YES!) Quantaray 28mm/2.8 reversed !!

uncropped, f/5.6, 28mm reversed



cropped !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





To be completely honest, even though I have to hold the ring flash up and push the aperture lever over manually, the 28mm was MUCH easier to work with. Well, this is kind apples and oranges seeing as though the 28 reversed only gets like ~3x zoom. With the MP-E you are always tempted to crank it down to 5x. The difference between 3x and 5x as far as working distance and usability is pretty amazing.

Ohad

Great!

Netgarden

Ohad wrote:

Great!

wonderful macros! my favorites are the jumping spiders, and for you to capture the baby, so close is incredible. Usually the young insects almost look transparent. You did a nice job.

GonzoBernelli

Would you not get softness from diffraction at f16?

sirsloop

Yes I did... I wasn't used to shooting with this lens so f/16 didn't seem all that small at the time. Look at the later photo there where its was at f/7.1. Its very sharp, just shallow....