canon lens math help needed (macro lenses)

Hey right now I'm using the EF 100mm F2.8 macro lens for macros of bugs and insects. I want to sell it and get the MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens.

Problem is the 65mm on that lens is very short working distance and has minimum of 1:1. So if I wanted to frame an entire butterfly for instance, I wouldn't be able to.

So, could I use my Canon 50mm F1.8 II lens as a 0.5:1 to 1:1 macro lens for the farther back shots, if I put an extension tube on it?

If I put enough extension tubes on the Canon 50mm F1.8 II lens to achieve 1:1 with it, what will be the focusing distance? And will it be longer or shorter than the MP-E 65mm @ 1:1???

For clarity

This is the right place for your question. Mike and the other guys here really are the best to answer you.

I do know however that the Canon EF 50mm 2.5 Macro lens with the life size convertor would do the job, as I have used it for skin and mouth pictures extensively. There's a nice ring flash or articulated component flash that fit the lens and make illumination a cinch. The MPE-65 lens is a star, a very wonderful and special purpose lens and more expensive.

The Canon EF 50 mm Macro, is IMHO a bargain and has better optical characteristics than the 50 1.4, but the focus is not as fast.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

This is the right place for your question. Mike and the other guys here really are the best to answer you.

I do know however that the Canon EF 50mm 2.5 Macro lens with the life size convertor would do the job, as I have used it for skin and mouth pictures extensively. There's a nice ring flash or articulated component flash that fit the lens and make illumination a cinch. The MPE-65 lens is a star, a very wonderful and special purpose lens and more expensive.

The Canon EF 50 mm Macro, is IMHO a bargain and has better optical characteristics than the 50 1.4, but the focus is not as fast.

Asher

Click to expand...

Hey thanks for the reply.

I must correct you however I don't mean the Canon 50mm macro. I mean the Canon 50mm F1.8 II lens which is a standard 50mm lens. I am wondering if I put extension tubes on it, can it replace the function of my 100mm F2.8 macro for farther back macro shots of like butterflys and dragonflies and stuff, and let the 65mm 1-5x macro lens handle the up close shots like spiders and flys and ladybugs?

What I want to do is sell my 100mm F2.8 macro lens and buy the 65mm 1-5x macro lens but the problem is then I won't be able to take pictures of bugs from farther back, like their full body since the 65mm is a minimum of 1:1. So since I already have a 50mm f1.8 II lens though I was hoping I could use that in a substitute for the 100mm f2.8 macro for futher back stuff for I don't have to buy anything else extra.

As far as flash's go, I'm probably going to get the MT-24 ex.

MacroKnut (real name?),

The 65mm MP-E is a very specialized macro lens that I don't think would work for your intended subject, unless you're talking about butterflies on a pinboard. If you want to shoot live butterflies, I would think you would need more focal length, not less. Consider the Sigma 150/2.8 or the Canon 180/3.5 for that purpose.

You can get OK magnification by using extension tubes on your 50/1.8, but your working distance will be very very small. Even smaller with the 65 MP-E. I've never used the 65 MP-E, but I've always considered it to be a lens for stamp collectors. Someone with experience chime in and correct me if I'm wrong on this.

I do have the Sigma 150/2.8. I used to have a Sigma 180/3.5, but opted for the 150 because it's so much smaller and lighter and better handling. It might be slightly better optically, but the jury's out on that. Below is a photo of a brown recluse spider that got stuck on a piece of tape. Before disposing of his poisonous little carcass, I shot a few photos.


150mm, 1/200 sec, f/16, ISO 100
External flash (420EX) @ -1/3 EV

I really really want the MP-E 65mm after seeing other peoples shots with it,but the only way I will be able to afford it is by selling the 100mm F2.8 macro lens. But then I wouldn't be able to take further back shots, sigh. This is so complicated

As it is right now I do more close ups @ 1:1 than I do further back shots, so I think I will indeed probably sell the 100mm f2.8 and get the MP-E 65. If I feel the need for farther-back stuff later, I can always try to pickup a cheap Sigma macro lens or something maybe right guys?

What do you think guys, sounds like a good idea for me? I honestly can't decide.

btw yes sorry MacroKnut is not my real name i didnt know we have to use real name here. How do I change it

Simple!

PM me First and Last and provide your web address too!
I'll then clean the thread of the evidence at no charge

Asher

I guess I'm still confused as to what you want to take photos of.

Jason C Doss said:

Below is a photo of a brown recluse spider that got stuck on a piece of tape. Before disposing of his poisonous little carcass, I shot a few photos.

Click to expand...

It's probably just the angle, but I only count six legs, seven if the most posterior on the right is hiding. Did this spider lose a leg or legs on the tape?

- Dino

Jason C Doss said:

I guess I'm still confused as to what you want to take photos of.

Click to expand...

All kinds of bugs/insects/spiders/etc. I will probably be doing more 1:1+ work than farther back stuff I think since I really love up-close portraits of bugs more than I like the farther back stuff. But sometimes farther back stuff can be good like this macro I took last week:

MacroKnut said:

Hey right now I'm using the EF 100mm F2.8 macro lens for macros of bugs and insects. I want to sell it and get the MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens.

Click to expand...

Please note, these are digested comments as I do not have the MPE-65 and do not see a need for one (I do want some extension tube though).

I would recommend against it. The EF 100/2.8 USM is only a $450 USD lens brand new so resale will be low and you will be sacrificing working distance which can be helpful for many flying insects.

MacroKnut said:

Problem is the 65mm on that lens is very short working distance and has minimum of 1:1. So if I wanted to frame an entire butterfly for instance, I wouldn't be able to.

So, could I use my Canon 50mm F1.8 II lens as a 0.5:1 to 1:1 macro lens for the farther back shots, if I put an extension tube on it?

If I put enough extension tubes on the Canon 50mm F1.8 II lens to achieve 1:1 with it, what will be the focusing distance? And will it be longer or shorter than the MP-E 65mm @ 1:1???

Click to expand...

Here are some tables showing working distances and magnifications for several combination. Note that the dioptric correction filters reduce image quality while not losing any light (i.e., autofocus works fine) while extension tubes retain image quality while reducing light (autofocus may fail and manual focus could be difficult).

Also note, you will likely want a shoulder pod or a tripod with the MPE-65 as I have heard getting sharp shots handheld (using flash) past 2:1 is nearly impossible. Add in the cost of a shoulder pod for handheld work (torso based stability) and the cost of flash as moving insects need to have their motion stopped and you are looking at an expensive tool.


Whereas a set of extension tubes will set you back ~$170 USD at B&H (the Kenko set which is fine as they are optically perfect [no glass]). This is a much cheaper way (though you will likely still want at least 2 flashes due to light loss) to find out if you need the MPE-65. Never get me wrong, I would love having one, but have a hard time seeing the need for one for most of the subjects that interest me.

enjoy,

Sean (somewhat bewildered by the desire to sell an excellent lens to buy another excellent lens with completely different usage rather than just another lens and expand your toolset)

Jason C Doss said:

MacroKnut (real name?),

The 65mm MP-E is a very specialized macro lens that I don't think would work for your intended subject, unless you're talking about butterflies on a pinboard. I.. I've never used the 65 MP-E, but I've always considered it to be a lens for stamp collectors. Someone with experience chime in and correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Click to expand...

I have seen (but not taken) quite a few excellent insect macros using the 65, a shoulder-pod (modern rifle stock for a camera), and the MT-24EX (macro twinlight). But the trick is the the MP-E65 without the extras $800 worth of gear is useless in the field and a tripod is too unwieldy for shooting active 2-3 mm long critters as you will often disturb their perch with a tripod leg long before you can get the camera mounted and aimed.

In short, it is a great insect lens with the proper add-ons from what I have seen. I can come up a couple links:

http://bugguide.net/bgimage/user/1211 - I know Bill uses both the 65 and 100/2.8

http://bugguide.net/node/view/10923 - A thread about this lens.

MacroKnut said:

.

So, could I use my Canon 50mm F1.8 II lens as a 0.5:1 to 1:1 macro lens for the farther back shots, if I put an extension tube on it?

Click to expand...

Better yet, buy a reversing ring and a step up ring to reverse mount your 50/1.8 on the 100/2.8. This should get you close with perhaps some vignetting for ~$20 USD including shipping. The reversed 50 will act somthing like a +20 diopter close up filter.

enjoy,

Sean (who loves his 100/2.8)

Dino Rama said:

It's probably just the angle, but I only count six legs, seven if the most posterior on the right is hiding. Did this spider lose a leg or legs on the tape?

Click to expand...

There are seven. I guess he lost one at some point in time. I don't mess with these spiders much, as they inflict a painful bite.

Sean, that bee is BEAUTIFUL! What kind is it?! The photo is gorgeous!

Jason C Doss said:

Sean, that bee is BEAUTIFUL! What kind is it?! The photo is gorgeous!

Click to expand...

Thanks Jason. The bee is a male Eucerini (Digger) bee. I do not know more than that. The flower is a gum plant, Grindelia integrifolia. The image should click through to my website where this is all spelled out. That said, my website is just restarted and I am slacking out filling out IPTC data so that the site generation script fills things in as I gave up on writing something from scratch as it cuts into shooting time.

enjoy, )

Sean

The other digger bee I have reasonably ID'ed and uploaded (click image for details or save and check IPTC).