# DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACRO LENS



## sinners (Aug 9, 2011)

Hi, 

Want to jump into macro field. Can one help me differentiate between which one is for what "specific" between canon 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro and canon 100mm f2.8 macro IS. Any links, any videos or any personal views would be most welcome. 

Thanks n awaiting ur replies,

regards,


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2011)

I have both - they are entirely different lenses, both are excellent in their own way. 

The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is a 'standard' macro lens - it can focus from infinity up to 1:1 magnification. That means it's useful as a 100mm prime, e.g. for portraits and other uses for a short, moderately fast telephoto lens, as well as a macro lens. The Hybrid IS is great for use as a short tele lens, and somewhat useful for handholding macro shots (although it's less effective at macro distances). It's an easy lens to use, and seems to fit very well with 'want to jump into macro'. 

The MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is a very specialized lens. It starts where standard macro lenses leave off, in that the least magnification is 1:1, and it goes up to 5:1. You cannot focus beyond macro distances, this lens has no other use. It's very fun, but more difficult to use. At 5x, a grain of rice will fill the field of view.

One consequence of shooting at macro distances is that your depth of field is incredibly thin, such that you usually need to stop down to get as much of the subject in focus as possible. Another consequence is that effective aperture becomes much narrower, in terms of the amount of light reaching the sensor. The formula is effective aperture = aperture + (aperture x magnification). Those apply to all macro lenses, so at 1:1 f/2.8 with either the 100mm L or the MP-E 65mm, you're getting f/5.6 light levels. But with the MP-E 65mm, at 5x f/11 for example, you've got light of f/66. That means you almost always need to add light to your scene, so in addition to the lens itself, you'll want to budget for something like the MT24-EX Twin Lite, which is really intended for use on the MP-E 65mm. You'll need a good tripod, and probably a set of macro rails as well - the MP-E 65mm only has one ring, which controls 'focus' and 'magnification' - so, you can either preset the mag and move the camera+lens back and forth to achieve focus (thus the macro rails), or you can pick a distance and focus and get whatever mag you end up with (not as desirable, since that also changes your composition).

IMO, for getting started with macro, the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is the better choice. If you love macro, add the MP-E 65mm and MT-24EX down the line. If you sort of like macro, you get a lens that does macro and has other uses as well. If you really want to jump in with both feet, and can get both MP-E 65mm and MT-24EX, that combination can make some stunning images - but it takes a lot of practice to get there.

Hope that helps...


----------



## recon photography (Aug 9, 2011)

extension tubes are a cheap option you can consider aswell but i would go for the 100mm f2.8l it has 9rounded apeture blades which produce the nicest bokeh out and if you decide you like extreme macro you can get out your ring flash and tripod aswell as a set of extension tubes and a 2xextender which i believe although i haven't tried it will get you to around 4.4x life size which is just under the 5x of the mp-e 65 super cool thing


----------



## PeterJ (Aug 9, 2011)

I'd go for the 100mm f/2.8L as well. I was in the same situation and wanted to "play" with macro without too much expense and the IS and focal length lets you get some plausible hand-held shots just being careful with lighting, and of course it works great for the preferred solution of better lighting, a tripod and manual focus. For hand-held you're looking at a few mm DOF at 2.8 which isn't too easy for me at least so the IS and ability to get good light in from a speedlite is great when you invariably need to stop it down a lot.

In reality I decided macro wasn't entirely my thing but I still get great enjoyment from it taking "somewhat macro" shots where my other lenses won't focus near enough. For smaller pets and animals for example it gives great results, and I've also used it to take photos of some cooking and products etc. It's not a bad general 100mm lens either, although focus is a bit slower compared to say a 70-200 f/2.8 so I don't use it a lot as a general lens. But it's a lens I'm sure you'll find lots of uses for either way.


----------



## recon photography (Aug 9, 2011)

i had a similar experience i found macro to be not i thought it was i wold definitely buy the 100mm f2.8l lens such a nice allround lens but when you get any closer you need a tripod and the dof is soo small it is hit and miss and it takes a lot of time btw this is for insects flowers should be fine handheld in good light


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2011)

Some samples might help.

*100L for macro and near-macro:*




EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/160 s, f/11, ISO 640




EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/150 s, f/13, ISO 100

*100L for non-macro:*




EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 320

*MP-E 65mm:*




EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 5x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX




EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 4x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX




EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 4x, 0.8 s, f/10, ISO 200

The last shot was one of my first with the MP-E 65mm, and that was before I got the MT-24EX. I tried the shot with 5-10 s exposures, and it just didn't work well. The solution was to 'paint' the scene with an LED flashlight during the 0.8 s exposure. A fair bit of trial and error is involved.


----------



## mark millar (Aug 9, 2011)

Hi - 
Everyone is talking about the 100mm. Would anyone recommend, or have exeperience they'd like to share regarding the 180mm?


----------



## LuCoOc (Aug 9, 2011)

I also recommend the 100L. I have it for almost 1.5 years now and don't use it for macros only. My usual set up is 1000D+100L and a 430EX II with an off-camera shoe cord (e.g. OC-E3). Then I set it to f8.0 and 1/100-160sec and shoot almost every small thing I see ;D
It's really easy to use



sinners said:


> Any links, any videos or any personal views would be most welcome.



check out the-digital-picture.com

100L review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

MP-E review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

180L review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-180mm-f-3.5-L-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## LuCoOc (Aug 9, 2011)

Here are some more 100L-samples:


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 9, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is a 'standard' macro lens - it can focus from infinity up to 1:1 magnification. That means it's useful as a 100mm prime, e.g. for portraits and other uses for a short, moderately fast telephoto lens, as well as a macro lens. The Hybrid IS is great for use as a short tele lens, and somewhat useful for handholding macro shots (although it's less effective at macro distances). It's an easy lens to use, and seems to fit very well with 'want to jump into macro'.


Wait...Bryan, is that you?


----------



## FredBGG (Aug 9, 2011)

the 100mm 2.8L macro is a brilliant lens.

for the hell of it here is a "pixel peep" at 100% magnification and crop of a file from a Canon 5D Mark II.







It is my favorit Canon lens. The combination of macro, 100mm focal length, rediculously good IS, light, very nice bokeh, internal focusing, very light and a touch of that medium format look to it.

Portrait





the forum does a funny scaling to it..... click on it to see it better

I am looking forward to putting a next generation sensor behind this lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is a 'standard' macro lens - it can focus from infinity up to 1:1 magnification. That means it's useful as a 100mm prime, e.g. for portraits and other uses for a short, moderately fast telephoto lens, as well as a macro lens. The Hybrid IS is great for use as a short tele lens, and somewhat useful for handholding macro shots (although it's less effective at macro distances). It's an easy lens to use, and seems to fit very well with 'want to jump into macro'.
> ...



I'm John, but I'm a frequent participant on TDP if that's the Bryan you mean.


----------



## mark millar (Aug 9, 2011)

John - Do you have any experience wtih the 180?
Mark


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 9, 2011)

In the late 60s Porshe made a car called the 917 striclty for racing. It was going 240mph when other cars could not crack 200. It became known as "the widowmaker" for obvious reasons. Awsome car? Yes! A good car for someone interested in thier first sports car. Hell no.

65mm Macro something to consider as your first Macro? Er no.

100mm marcro is a great first macro. IS vertion even better.


----------



## FOB2009 (Aug 10, 2011)

Don't forget the Zeiss 100/2.0 macro -- incredible for macro and portraits.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 10, 2011)

mark millar said:


> Hi -
> Everyone is talking about the 100mm. Would anyone recommend, or have exeperience they'd like to share regarding the 180mm?



The 180 is very good and very expensive. Its main advantage is the longer working distance that a 180mm macro lens gives. It helps when photographing small but skittish creatures.

Almost every true 1:1 macro is a fine lens, no matter who makes them, they are excellent.

Many like the IS of the Canon 100mm L because you can get a handheld near macro to come out reasonably well, and do not have to setup a whole array of macro equipment. Its easy to get a acceptable shot.


----------



## mark millar (Aug 10, 2011)

Thanks re the 180 info. Would you, in your estimation, say it's worth the extra cash? Too be honest, it would probably serve double duty as a fill in or back up to our 70-200 2.8 when it has been delegated elsewhere. I appreciate your input.


----------



## recon photography (Aug 10, 2011)

i believe there will be a new 180 macro with is soon


----------



## sinners (Aug 10, 2011)

Thank you all for your feedback, suggestions. Appreciate them all..

Regards,


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2011)

mark millar said:


> John - Do you have any experience wtih the 180?
> 
> Would you, in your estimation, say it's worth the extra cash? Too be honest, it would probably serve double duty as a fill in or back up to our 70-200 2.8 when it has been delegated elsewhere. I appreciate your input.



I've never owned the 180mm f/3.5L Macro, but I've borrowed it from a colleague on occasion. IQ is excellent, on par with the 100mm L. As Mt. Spokane stated, it's main advantage is the longer MFD (a little over 18" for 1:1 magnification, vs. a little under 12" with the 100mm L). Both have a ~3" hood, which cuts the working distance if you include that, at least from the perspective of a skittish subject - and since MFD is measured from the sensor, you also have to subtract lens and part of the body from the MFD, e.g. with the 100mm L and it's hood, at 1:1 the end of the hood is less than 3" from the subject.

If you absolutely can't get within 12" of your subject, and need that extra 6" of working distance, the yes, it's worth the money. The narrower FOV at 1:1 also usually means less complexity in the background, which can help sometimes. 

As a backup to the 70-200/2.8, i.e. using the 180mm Macro as a normal telephoto lens, it's not ideal for that. The AF on the 180mm Macro is slow (the TDP review of the lens states, "_There are few (if any) Canon lenses that focus slower than this one._"). That's a pretty common trait of macro lenses, actually, but it's much more evident with the 180mm than the 100mm L version. When I use a telephoto lens or a telezoom, I usually want fast AF.


----------



## recon photography (Aug 10, 2011)

theoretically you can get closer with a 180 that the mp-e 65mm as long as it is compatible with a 2x extender then get a set of extension tubes and you will be insanely close


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2011)

recon photography said:


> theoretically you can get closer with a 180 that the mp-e 65mm as long as it is compatible with a 2x extender then get a set of extension tubes and you will be insanely close



How do you figure that? The 180mm Macro is 1x magnification, and with the 2x extender (yes, it's compatible) it becomes 2x magnification. Since extension tubes increase magnification by a factor of [tube length / focal length], they are not very effective at long focal lengths. Stacking the full set of Kenko tubes (68mm) or 3 EF 25mm tubes onto the 180mm Macro with the 2x Extender behind it only gets you to about 2.4x magnification, not even half of the 5x magnification you can get with the MP-E 65mm.


----------



## recon photography (Aug 10, 2011)

if you stack extension tubes to the point the front of the lens touches the subject (that basically what the mp-e 65 does) then it should be closer the mp-e has 325mm at basically 0 distance from subject so you should be able to get the 180 to have 360mm at basically 0 distance from subject with extension tubes and extender. remember i used the word theoretically


----------



## recon photography (Aug 10, 2011)

also the 100mm f2.8l gets to 1.4x mag with just 1 25mm extension tube so i have a feeling you may be ripping a little to hard on the mag of the 180


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2011)

recon photography said:


> also the 100mm f2.8l gets to 1.4x mag with just 1 25mm extension tube so i have a feeling you may be ripping a little to hard on the mag of the 180



True, but a single 25mm tube on the 180mm only gets you to 1.2x magnification. Even if you could stack an extender and enough extension tubes to get the 180mm somewhere close to 5x, why? The more tubes you add, the more the light is spread out - it's not quite empty resolution, but you are decreasing the resolution relative to the MP-E 65mm. Also, that's a lot of expense and hassle to get something the MP-E 65mm can do natively. If you really like that sort of complex setup, get yourself a reversing ring and mount a reversed prime on a telephoto lens via a bellows, and you'll get _real_ magnification...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 10, 2011)

Hey, those are some nice samples neuro / John. (By the by, did you write any of the TDP lens reviews or portions? I've seen some phrases from TDP reviews in other places, and your initial response here seemed like one of those times.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Hey, those are some nice samples neuro / John. (By the by, did you write any of the TDP lens reviews or portions? I've seen some phrases from TDP reviews in other places, and your initial response here seemed like one of those times.)



Thanks, Edwin! Nope, those are all Bryan's. I do use them for reference quite frequently, though, as they're thorough and informative.


----------



## recon photography (Aug 10, 2011)

i was just saying if he decides he is really into to macro for about 500 more $ he has a slightly more magnified less good mp-e 65


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 13, 2011)

That doesn't sound like much of a choice. $500 for a worse lens that perhaps is slightly more magnified?

From what I have read - just read - it does seem like the 180mm macro could be sharper, and could perhaps be faster (although most lenses can't be made arbitrarily fast...the new EF extenders make lenses focus much slower for the sake of accuracy, especially the 2X).

I know - I'm not employed by Sigma - but I do recall that they have a pretty new (I think, there's also a discontinued one I might be getting this mixed up with) 150mm macro which should be more or less close to the 180mm macro, but at the usual bargain basement prices.

Edit: Nevermind - I looked down that road before - TDP finds problems with AF accuracy with Sigma's semi-equivalent offerings to Canon's 100mm f/2.8 and the 180mm f/3.5 macros - the 105mm and 150mm macros, both f/2.8. Both are reported as having AF issues "even on 1-series bodies." Vignetting on the 150mm. Sharpness for both lenses wide open is about the same as their Canon equivalents, even on the f/2.8 150mm compared to the 180mm - not bad.

Personally I haven't heard of any replacement for the MP-E 65mm...being able to focus and change the variable magnification at the same time is something no other lens, at least on EOS, does so smoothly. No excuse not to get it if you need it. It really has been a boon for miniature photography, and much better than some clumsy reversed-prime (exposing the wrong end of the lens to the elements, for goodness sake!) ordeal which still doesn't let you easily change magnification (well, depending on how bad the bellows is I suppose). If I recall right you can eat the cost of a MP-E and the macro twin light and still have a few dollars left over before you can buy the 180mm macro, which of course won't be coming with a macro light. On the other hand, the detachable flash heads on the twin light should be very useful for the 180mm macro too.

For my first dedicated macro, I'll probably be looking at the 100mm f/2.8, although the 180mm f/3.5 is still tempting - but being half again more expensive it doesn't seem quite to add up the value I expect. No extender utility with the 100mm, though IS more than makes up for it I would expect. On the other hand...180mm!! Of course, if money were no object, the Hartblei Superrotator 120mm f/4 Makro would be a tempting choice too.


----------



## recon photography (Aug 13, 2011)

most people use manual focus for macro anyway i'm just saying if he buys a 180 get doesn't have to get a mp-e later if i were him i would just get a 100mm f2.8l its really good for portraits 2


----------

