# A New Zoom Macro Coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 11, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/a-new-zoom-macro-coming-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/a-new-zoom-macro-coming-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From the land of weird

</strong>I received an email today outlining a new macro lens that Canon has in the pipeline and could be released in the next year.</p>
<p>It will be a 1:1 zoom macro, with an aperture of f/4 and IS. No mention of the focal length for the lens. I’m reminded of the now discontinued Nikkor 70-170mm f/4.5-5.6D as a zoom 1:1 macro we’ve seen in the past. A replacement to the 180 f/3.5L perhaps?</p>
<p>A huge grain of salt with this one.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 11, 2013)

If true, perhaps it's like the much-maligned (yet brilliant!) 24-70 F/4 IS macro mode, in which the macro only works on the 70mm end?

Stupid question that I still want an answer to: Is it possible to have a 1x magnification at more than one focal length in the same lens? 

- A


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 11, 2013)

The real question is: what is the advantage of a zoom compared to its long end prime?


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 11, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> A huge grain of salt with this one.


That's understatement! It sure sounds like an odd idea, especially for 1:1, but if it were parfocal, maybe. A zoom fisheye seemed odd, too (Tokina aside) until the 8-15, so who knows...


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 11, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> If true, perhaps it's like the much-maligned (yet brilliant!) 24-70 F/4 IS macro mode, in which the macro only works on the 70mm end?
> 
> Stupid question that I still want an answer to: Is it possible to have a 1x magnification at more than one focal length in the same lens?
> 
> - A



Well, they could in theory have a build-in adjustable extension tube that automatically adjusts when in Macro to maintain 1:1 at all focal lengths. Of course, it'd be way cooler if it was free to be at any position so we could get >1:1 magnification at the shorter focal lengths if we wanted. Being cynical, that wouldn't happen because Canon would want another $$$ to 'enable' that feature on a lens because then it's >1:1 so they can charge more.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 11, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> The real question is: what is the advantage of a zoom compared to its long end prime?



In the choice of a standard zoom vs. standard prime, with a prime you usually can just move your feet to frame. From what little tripod macro work I've done (as with landscape work on a cliff or prominent vista), some times you can't get the framing right by just moving the tripod or moving your feet -- you need another lens or you need a zoom.

So I see value in this if you shoot a lot of macro, but I'm not a whiz in this arena. I have the 100L and the 24-70 F/4 IS and I use both for much more than macro.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

Well, the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 *1-5x* Macro is a macro zoom lens.


----------



## RGF (Sep 11, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If true, perhaps it's like the much-maligned (yet brilliant!) 24-70 F/4 IS macro mode, in which the macro only works on the 70mm end?
> ...



Even if they could do this, what would the IQ be? Macro tend to be incredibly sharp - could a macro zoom meet this hurdle?

I would like to see a 180-200 macro with Tilt capabilities (don't need shift). That would help with DOF which is very narrow at magnification


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 *1-5x* Macro is a macro zoom lens.



Hell, I always forget that duckbill platypus of a lens. What a weird piece of kit that is.

- A


----------



## RGF (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 *1-5x* Macro is a macro zoom lens.



what is the zoom range? I thought that this was a fixed focual lens and magnification zoom was due to moving in closer to the subject


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

RGF said:


> I would like to see a 180-200 macro with Tilt capabilities (don't need shift). That would help with DOF which is very narrow at magnification


Probably not as much as you'd think, though. 

Privatebydesign quite effectively explained the reasons, so I'll just copy/paste from that post:



privatebydesign said:


> Only if the subject is two dimensional, after all tilting doesn't increase dof, it just moves the plane of focus. For instance the ubiquitous fly's eye macro image would gain nothing from tilting.
> 
> I am not saying Canon can't or won't do it, they do love their tilt, and macro lenses and combining them would be yet another "because we can" 17mm TS-E moment, but I highly doubt it. Apart from the above mentioned practical use with three dimensional objects there is the MAJOR issue of the J distance and the tilt angle needed at macro distances.
> 
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 11, 2013)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 *1-5x* Macro is a macro zoom lens.
> ...



The 65mm is really a misnomer with that lens:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

From that link (read more, of course): "Canon lists the focal length for this lens as 65mm. It is, but disregard this number for all intents and purposes. Think 1x to 5x magnification. Think 1:1 to 5:1. This lens starts where typical macro lenses stop."

It's a nutty 5:1 macro magnification. You'd use it to shoot flies' eyeballs, circuit board details, human hairs, etc. DOF is comically small from what I've read, and it really pushes you to need macro focusing rails, meticulously groom your lighting, stack your focus, all that. I won't touch that kind of specialized/'engineered' photography with a ten foot pole, but some folks love it.

- A


----------



## Blaze (Sep 11, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I have that lens and it's not quite as nutty as you make it seem. It's definitely a challenge, but you can do quite well even without focusing rails and focus stacking.

For those interested in macro shooting with the MP-E 65mm, I highly recommend reading LordV's hints and tips: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=807056


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

Blaze said:


> ...you can do quite well even without focusing rails and focus stacking.



Indeed. These were shot _handheld_ with the 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


----------



## RGF (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see a 180-200 macro with Tilt capabilities (don't need shift). That would help with DOF which is very narrow at magnification
> ...



Thanks. Interesting and valuable


----------



## Daniel Flather (Sep 11, 2013)

Where's the new TSE 45mm f4 1:2 macro?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 11, 2013)

Already had a Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 Macro. Magnification was only 0.5X when 300mm, and 95 cm away from the object. Thinking of something cheaper than 180L, a hypothetical 70-300mm or 150-300mm would be able to focus to 60 cm from the object, and get "life size" 1X magnification. It seems like a safe working distance to not scare insects, and not wet the lens when make photos of "splash".


----------



## lol (Sep 11, 2013)

I'd like to have a zoom macro for the same reasons I like regular zooms. Something in the short tele range would be ok, say, 50-100mm? f/4 is no problem since most of the time most will stop down to have any depth of field, although AF will not be possible as you get close to 1:1. But again for a macro that is ok. Ideally it would be parfocal throughout the range so you don't need to refocus as you zoom. A change in magnification is ok, although my sleep deprived mind is telling me that then isn't going to be 1:1 through the range, unless wider angles will allow you to focus closer.

I already have the MP-E65 but I don't like the varying focal point as you adjust and other laws of physics really getting in the way.


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Hmm, sounds like someone who has _never used the lens_! You are really putting it in bad light, but it isn't even a fraction as bad as that. It is a high magnification macro lens, that's all. It is a lens with built in adjustable extension, so you can get REALLY CLOSE (which is what _*macro *_is all about!!!)

You don't really need all that extra stuff either...focusing rails, meticulously groomed lighting, focus stacking, and "all that". I have followed a number of excellent macro photographers for years who use that lens HAND HELD at 4-5x zoom! It's all about technique, and simply HAVING light (it doesn't necessarily need to be groomed). 

For example, try this guy's work and tutorials on for size. Prolific MP-E shooter, hand held with a little bit of technique and "bait" (or just the right time of day). He's been published in a couple well known photography magazines:

http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501

It is a total myth that this lens is some kind of nutty, unwieldy, difficult to use lens requiring a host of additionally quirky equipment to use right.


----------



## Seta (Sep 12, 2013)

First of all; most new macro lens designs change focal length when they work at 1:1; otherwise the lens would be bigger .

The 180mm becomes a 120mm (ish)
The 100mm becomes a 65mm (ish)
The 60mm becomes a 38mm (ish)

This is easy to calculate adding extension tubes; for a 50mm lens you need to add 50mm extension to add 1X more magnification

The MP-E is 65mm at 1:1 and becomes a 38mm (ish) at 5:1; if the lens was 65mm all the way it would be huge

Saying that and as I macro photographer I could not care less about a macro zoom; this is the kind of lens non macro photographers would buy.

What macro photographers really need is a long due revision of the MP-E; a 0.5-5X range would be more usefull and the lens needs a round aperture and cone shaped tip (like the old Olympus 38mm bellows lens)

I know dalantech work, was one of the first macro photographers I followed but for best results focus stacking is necessary, both because difraction limits resolution and thin DOF

You can see some of my work here http://www.flickr.com/photos/seta666/ but check other people as John Hallmen (best field macro photographer I know of) and Nikola Rhame too


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2013)

I hope Canon would update the 180mm macro with IS - you'd get long macro working range plus a tele prime (with tc) in one piece, IS isn't really necessary for macro range but it is for 300mm+. For the very same reason I doubt this will happen - why would Canon design one lens if they can sell two :-\ ?


----------



## marshall (Sep 12, 2013)

I wonder if a version of the MP-E 65 in which the position of the focal plane can be adjusted internally (a focusing ring) at any given magnification, is a technically feasible. 

Such a lens, with a motorized focusing ring for remote control, would be extremely attractive to me because it would obviate the need for focusing rails in many situations (focus stacking over a few millimeters for example). If the focusing motor is fast, it may dramatically improve the ability to produce nice focus-stacked images in the field as well.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I hope Canon would update the 180mm macro with IS - you'd get long macro working range plus a tele prime (with tc) in one piece, IS isn't really necessary for macro range but it is for 300mm+. For the very same reason I doubt this will happen - why would Canon design one lens if they can sell two :-\ ?


Personally, I'd rather have a 180mm f/2.8 that's lighter and sharp as hell without the $500-1000 IS premium. IS is of limited use for my use of the 180 - just when chasing butterflies and such, but even then, the weight is more of the issue than the lack of IS. I love IS, but the 100mm f2.8 IS fills that need and it's focal length is much better suited for running around to get shots at less than 1:1.

Just my two cents...


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Personally, I'd rather have a 180mm f/2.8 that's lighter and sharp as hell without the $500-1000 IS premium.



My envy comes from a photog acquaintance of mine who has the 200mm Nikon with a 2x extender and is extremely flexible with this combination next to having top-notch sharpness - that's why I also want it, but with IS 

Btw for a macro, there's no need for f2.8 on 180mm as far as I understand it - I don't need that thin dof & it would add much more weight, I'd prefer f4+IS...


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> My envy comes from a photog acquaintance of mine who has the 200mm Nikon with a 2x extender and is extremely flexible with this combination next to having top-notch sharpness - that's why I also want it, but with IS
> 
> Btw for a macro, there's no need for f2.8 on 180mm as far as I understand it - I don't need that thin dof & it would add much more weight, I'd prefer f4+IS...


Yes, the 180mm works incredibly well with both extenders - which is why I went for it over the 100mm. Having extenders is awesome for skiddish or dangerous critters. Even shooting less than 1:1, it gives a unique look you can't seem to get with an equivalent telephoto, such as this one of a green anole with the 1.4x extender (on a crop sensor with a 403mm effective focal length):






As for the f/2.8, I want it to for a brighter viewfinder and AF with the 2x extender. Even though the supposed max aperture with the 180 is f/7, the 1DX and 5DIII don't support AF with it. Also shooting wide open can be used for creative photos such as the one below shot at f/3.5:


----------

