Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: JPlayer on February 02, 2006, 06:57:27 pm
-
Looking for the best Macro lens for 5D.
I have read good reviews about the EF-s 60mm f/2.8Macro, however I am not sure whether it works with 5D.
Does the focal length matter?
-
Looking for the best Macro lens for 5D.
I have read good reviews about the EF-s 60mm f/2.8Macro, however I am not sure whether it works with 5D.
Does the focal length matter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 60 macro does not mount to the 5D.
The 180 macro is the one - incredible image quality and working distance. Downside: major cost & weight. Bonuses: it work with the Canon teleconverters and it is L. Vitamin L is good for you.
-
Hi Jplayer,
I recently purchased the 180 / 3.5 for my 5D.
This system supplanted a Nikon F5 with a 200/4 Micro lens.
I have owned a 60 and 105 MM Micro before and when I bought the 200; I knew I'd wasted a lot of time & money buying the other two.
Now that I have jumped ship and purchased Canon for the first time in my life ( I shot Nikon for almost 40 years ) I can say that I am absolutely delighted with my investment. The 180 on the 5D is magnificent. I have specialized in floral photography for about 10 years and with this new shooting combination, I am very happy with the colour; resolution; sharpness etc.
The reason for jumping to Canon? Full frame! Nikon doesn't have it and said they won't. I need it and that's the breaks! Looking through a 200 Micro with a conversion ratio of 1.5(6) made for a 300 mm. viewpoint and frankly the D2X and D2H that I tried my 200 Micro lens with did not reproduce colour with the accuracy I have grown to expect from film. On the other hand, the 5D / 180 combination does!
Hope this is useful to you.
Owen
-
If I were in the market for a dedicated macro lens, I'd get the Tamron 180/3.5 for it's build and optical quality, for its reasonably fast AF, for it's long working distance (the longest of all lenses), for it's reasonable price (only 200$ more than the Canon 100/2.8 macro USM), for it's IF and for Tamron's excellent compatibility reputation.
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html (http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html)
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...80_35/index.htm (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_180_35/index.htm)
-
I agree with everything boku and Owen have to say. Most owners of the Canon 180mm consider it to be among their best lenses by every measurable standard. If my unauthoritative opinion means anything, it beats everything I own, including my 70~200mm F/2.8L IS.
There is, of course, the issue of cost. The Canon lens is about $550 more if purchase from B&H. I don't know what the respective resale values are, but if you used either lens for 10 years and gave it away, the Canon lens would have cost about $1.05 more per week to own. If they both resell for 50% of original cost -- a very conservative estimate -- the difference is about 50 cents a week. Plug in your own assumptions and you may find the cost difference to be even less.
I believe that cost issues are often inflated and that quality of service should be of primary concern.
It seems that a lot of pros are using the Canon lens. Have any dumped it in favor of anything else?
Go for the big one, you won't regret it.
BTW, a Canon 100mm macro, fitted with a lens hood and tripod ring will cost about $50 less than the Tamron 180.
-
I'm another very satisfied Canon 180mm macro user, it really does serve up that photographic "wow" factor.
But it's quite an old design, and a recent Geoffrey Crawley review in a UK magazine compared the Canon 180mm macro with a much newer independent design (unfortunately I can't remember if it was a Tamron or a Sigma), and concluded that excellent as the Canon was it didn't offer any material benefits over the newer, and cheaper, independent lens.
-
Thanks for all your comments.
I have read the same review of the lenses that Gary refers to.
Canon, Sigma and Tamron, all 180 f/3.5 were compared. Scorring 90%, 90% and 91% percent respectively. Tamron scoring better on performance, having the edge in definitiion, better suited to digital cameras with its more contrasty mid-frequency detail. The only negative being its louder AF.
So, now the agonising dilemma is whether to stick to Canon, being a 10year old design and most expensive, or go for Tamron.
-
Like I said...
Vitamin L is good for you.
-
And yet, not always.
-
It's curious that this lens, the Canon 180/3.5, does not get a particularly high Photodo score. It's good at 3.9, but not spectacular. The 50/1.8 scores 4.2 for example. Now I notice in Canon's Lens Work books that the theoretical MTF charts for this lens, that unfortunately go only as high as 30 lp/mm, are the best in the entire book; unbelievably flat and high up the vertical axis.
Could the reason be that Photodo tests are at infinity and that the 180/3.5 is not that hot at infinity? Just wondered.
-
Like I said...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bob,
It might be good for you, but is it one of those essential vitamins ?
-
Bob,
It might be good for you, but is it one of those essential vitamins ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not essential, but definately addictive.
-
The proof of the pudding's in the eating.
I use the Canon 180 Macro almost exclusively for tightly cropped portraits. I tend to use the 90mm T&S for table top/product shots, and true macro is something I rarely do so can't really comment.
As a rule of thumb for portraiture I favour a sharp lens with soft lighting, and a soft lens with hard lighting. The Canon 180mm is outstanding when lit with a big soft box or octo-dome. The success relates to today's LL article regarding subject matter/print sizes, when you print a face at approximately life size the 180mm delivers unbelievable impact, chiefly by defining the structure of the eye in forensic detail. PS means you can manage skin texture however you wish, but you need a lens that will deliver the detail to guarantee riveting eye contact, the formula used on so many magazine covers.
I'm not really concerned about Photodo scores, all I know is that the Canon 180mm delivers in trumps for this application. However, if I was buying again I'd be tempted by the Geoffrey Crawley reviews to save the money and go for an independent 180mm macro alternative.
-
It's curious that this lens, the Canon 180/3.5, does not get a particularly high Photodo score. It's good at 3.9, but not spectacular. The 50/1.8 scores 4.2 for example. Now I notice in Canon's Lens Work books that the theoretical MTF charts for this lens, that unfortunately go only as high as 30 lp/mm, are the best in the entire book; unbelievably flat and high up the vertical axis.
Could the reason be that Photodo tests are at infinity and that the 180/3.5 is not that hot at infinity? Just wondered.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At what distance was the Canon 180 tested? Chances are they test lenses at a standard focus distance of 100m or something like that. The problem here is that macro lenses are optimised for close up rather than infinity (not surprising really) and often only perform decently - as opposed to stellar - at infinity focus.
That's one of many reasons why MTF tests are to be taken only as a rough guide. Another is that they often only include plots for 2 F stops e.g. wide open and F8. Some lenses might drop away at F11 whilst others maintain good imaging, but the MTF chart will not reveal that fact.
Leif
-
...As a rule of thumb for portraiture I favour a sharp lens with soft lighting, and a soft lens with hard lighting. The Canon 180mm is outstanding when lit with a big soft box or octo-dome. ....
That is VERY interesting input Gary.
As an EF 180 f/3.5 L Macro owner, I sometimes find that this lens outputs [at non-macro distances] somewhat non-contrasty results and tad soft (again, sometimes).
Is it because of lighting ?
-
Is it because of lighting ?
I don't know Roli, it could be a few things, two possible explanations spring to mind,
1. The 180mm Macro isn't an easy lens to hand-hold. Some bigger lenses seem to sit comfortably in the hand...and some waggle about like a balloon on a stick. And the 180mm is a waggler!
2. Even with dynamic auto focus I expect to lose maybe 10-20% of portrait shots due to focus errors, more if the pace steps up beyond "calm and sedate".
I'll try and post some examples of 180mm portraits over the next day or so, but I'd appreciate any advice on how image posting works on this new site?
-
Here's an example using the 180mm, one near enough full frame and a 100% crop. Assuming of course I've worked out how to load an image...[attachment=217:attachment][attachment=218:attachment]
-
I'm not really concerned about Photodo scores, all I know is that the Canon 180mm delivers in trumps for this application. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57445\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You should be because there's more to know than that. I've just checked out the Photodo procedures and, as I suspected, they test lenses only at infinity. Now you might criticise them for this but the fact is, for each prime they will take at least 96 measurements. (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, & 21mm from the centre, all at 10 lp/mm, 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm and all at the 2 f/stops of f8 and maximum aperture.
For zoom lenses it's more because they test at a number of different focal lengths. For their test of the Canon 100-400L IS zoom I calculate they would have taken 384 measurements.
Now I know that a seasoned professional who has worked with a lens for a while will have a pretty good idea as to its performance under a variety of conditions and will discover attributes that are not even addressed in Photodo MTF charts. However, it's interesting that in this thread no-one has mentioned that the 180/3.5L does not have the same stellar performance at infinity that it has at close focussing distances.
The only clues that this might be the case are the Photodo tests. Now this might not be of concern to those who bought this lens specifically for portraiture or macro work, but that's not its only use. Because of its extremely flat MTF response right out to the edges, some might think this lens could be an ideal choice for panoramic image stitching. A group of 16 stitched images with this lens could make an equivalent 4x5" format shot look like a 3MP P&S blow-up, by comparison.
Checking the Photodo MTF charts again, it seems that the 180/3.5 macro at f8 has an almost identical performance to the 100-400 IS zoom at 180mm and f8 (at infinity of course). Now this is worth knowing, isn't it? How long would it take a seasoned professional with a bunch of lenses to discover this fact?
-
Here's an example using the 180mm, one near enough full frame and a 100% crop. Assuming of course I've worked out how to load an image
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You've loaded the images okay but we really need to see some comparison shots with another similar but cheaper lens so we can appreciate the resolution difference .
-
Here's an example using the 180mm, one near enough full frame and a 100% crop. Assuming of course I've worked out how to load an image...[attachment=217:attachment][attachment=218:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Gary.
My first impression is [and my PC Screen is calibrated] is that:
a. The resolution in the cropped image is amazing, but
b. Both aren't contrasty enough...pretty similar to the results I get from non-macro distances.
At what distance from object the picture was taken ?
-
At what distance from object the picture was taken ?
Roli, about 2 metres. Human beings weren't designed to be seen at a closer range than this, in fact I'm surprised kissing has taken off in such a big way!
-
Roli, about 2 metres. Human beings weren't designed to be seen at a closer range than this, in fact I'm surprised kissing has taken off in such a big way!
Gary, that's because we do it with our eyes closed.
-
The best macro lens depends on your shooting style, and subject matter.
I tend to shoot plants, so moderate working distance suits me best - hence the 100mm Macro is my preference.
I used to use the FD 50 Macro and FD 200 Macro but didn't like the working distance on full-frame.
My current macro lens - the Canon EF 100mm USM Macro is excellent in general (it's sharper than the two other L lenses that I own, particularly wide open), my only issue is that it seems to suffer from diffraction more than I'd expect when stopped down. It was fine on film, but on my 10D it's not ideal @ f22
If you're shooting skittish subjects, then go for a longer lens. 180-200 or longer.
If you need to get in close, the 50 or MP-E65 would be better.
-
It's curious that this lens, the Canon 180/3.5, does not get a particularly high Photodo score. It's good at 3.9, but not spectacular. The 50/1.8 scores 4.2 for example. Now I notice in Canon's Lens Work books that the theoretical MTF charts for this lens, that unfortunately go only as high as 30 lp/mm, are the best in the entire book; unbelievably flat and high up the vertical axis.
Could the reason be that Photodo tests are at infinity and that the 180/3.5 is not that hot at infinity? Just wondered.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had noticed that photodo score. MAcro lenses tend to be very sharp in the centre and sometimes tail off at the edge when used at normal distances. Probably because at high magnification you are not using all the image circle, thought that may not apply with internal focus.
Anyway look at the photodo plots, they seem sharp in the centre.
-
Anyway look at the photodo plots, they seem sharp in the centre.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Photodo plots for this lens are hardly better than the 100-400 IS zoom at 180mm. That's worth knowing .
-
The Photodo plots for this lens are hardly better than the 100-400 IS zoom at 180mm. That's worth knowing .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Another thing worth noting:
180mm Macro min focusing distance: 1.5ft
100-400mm min focusing distance: 5.9ft
Max magnification:
100-400mm: 0.2x @ 400mm
180mm macro: 1.0x
Probably more important then Photodo scores if you want a macro lens.
-
Probably more important then Photodo scores if you want a macro lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course. It's always better to have the right tool for the job. If it's a macro shot you want or any shot that's significantly closer than infinity where you can adjust your shooting distance, I'm sure the 180/3.5 will deliver better results than the 100-400 at 180mm. But you would expect that, wouldn't you. Would anyone have any reason to doubt that?
What's surprising, and therefore as I said, worth knowing is that this superior performance of a fairly expensive prime does not extend all the way to infinity where performance seems to be no better that that of a 'medium to good' quality zoom, at least at f8.
It's not a given that all macro lenses have significantly worse performance at infinity. Consider the Canon 50/2.8 macro, for example. That's the point I was making, Ben .
-
Hi Jplayer,
The reason for jumping to Canon? Full frame! Nikon doesn't have it and said they won't. I need it and that's the breaks! Looking through a 200 Micro with a conversion ratio of 1.5(6) made for a 300 mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am puzzled: if you prefer the FOV of the 180 in 35mm to the 200mm in DX format, why not try something like the Nikon 105mm micro?
With the closer pixel spacing of Nikon options like the D200 and D2X compared to any of the Canon 35mm format DSLR's, the same maximum macro magnification (say 1:1) gives a more detailed image of a smaller field of view. For example, where a 1:1 macro gives a 10MP image of a certain subject with the D200, the 5D gives only about 6MP on the same portion of the subject.
-
Of course. It's always better to have the right tool for the job. If it's a macro shot you want or any shot that's significantly closer than infinity where you can adjust your shooting distance, I'm sure the 180/3.5 will deliver better results than the 100-400 at 180mm. But you would expect that, wouldn't you. Would anyone have any reason to doubt that?
What's surprising, and therefore as I said, worth knowing is that this superior performance of a fairly expensive prime does not extend all the way to infinity where performance seems to be no better that that of a 'medium to good' quality zoom, at least at f8.
It's not a given that all macro lenses have significantly worse performance at infinity. Consider the Canon 50/2.8 macro, for example. That's the point I was making, Ben .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 50/2.8 macro doesn't do 1.0x maginification either. That's probably why it can perform OK at non macro tasks.
Consider the MP-E 65mm... doesn't focus out to infinity at all AFAIK, and couldn't be tested at all with Photodo's methodology, but it is quite useful for the right kind of macro photography.
It's all about tradeoffs IMO. If you aren't interested in macro there is probably little point in buying a macro lens, but if you are buying something for Macro work, there is probably little point in caring about lens tests carried out at anything but macro working distances. If you don't want macro the 200/2.8L would be an even better choice then a 100-400, better optically and 1/2 the price of either the macro or the zoom.
-
I still haven't tried the Canon 100 macro.
Does anyone know how it performs in sharpness compared to the 180L? The thing is, I wouldn't even use it for macros most of the time. More like a portrait lens in the studio with big light sources, shooting at f/8.
The samples that Gary posted shows very similar sharpness that my 135L gives. How does the 100 macro compare, considering it's not an L?
-
The 50/2.8 macro doesn't do 1.0x maginification either. That's probably why it can perform OK at non macro tasks.
I don't see the evidence for this. You've caught me out in the sense this was not a good example I mentioned of a macro lens doing well at infinity because the Canon 50/2.8 only does up to 0.5x life size as you say. However, there are a number of other brands of 35mm macro lenses that do 1:1 life size and that have even better Photodo ratings than the Canon 50/2.8, such as the Minolta 50/2.8 and 100/2.8, both with a rating of 4.5, and the Pentax SMC-F 50/2.8 with a rating of 4.6. Even the el cheapo Tamron AF SP 90/2.8 does 1:1 macro and has a photodo rating of 4.3.
Consider the MP-E 65mm... doesn't focus out to infinity at all AFAIK, and couldn't be tested at all with Photodo's methodology, but it is quite useful for the right kind of macro photography.
That's a true, dedicated macro lens that enlarges to 5x life size without extension tubes. It's not designed to focus at infinity as all true macro lenses are not. One could argue that the term 'macro' lens for lenses that behave normally is a misnomer. Perhaps they should be described as 'close focus' lenses.
It's all about tradeoffs IMO. If you aren't interested in macro there is probably little point in buying a macro lens
I think you'll find there are a lot of folks who have bought the Tamron 90/2.8 macro because it's a sharp, good value lens, with or without macro. For many, the macro facility is just a bonus. But you have raised a point that hasn't been resolved in this thread yet.
I've made an assumption that the superb plots for the EF 180/3.5 macro in Canon's Lens Work books are an indication that at some close focussing distance this lens really is superb. But this is no more than a reasonable assumption. I have no evidence that it might be true, other than Canon's own theoretical MTF charts, the fact that the lens is a fairly expensive prime and a few subjective comments to the effect that it is a sharp lens.
As much as I am loathe to criticise anyone who is friendly enough to post an image demonstrating the quality of a lens, I have to be blunt and say that it's impossible for me to assess the quality of the lens that was used for the shots in this thread. For all I know, this lens could have a 3.9 rating all the way from infinity to its minimum focussing distance of 480mm. On the other hand, it might be even worse than 3.9 at closest focussing distance.
Without proper tests and comparisons I'm afraid it's all airy fairy and subjective.
-
How does the 100 macro compare, considering it's not an L?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I have the 24-105 f4/L, 17-40 f4/L and the 200 f2.8 L/II. I'd say it's sharper than all of them particularly wide open.
It would make a good portrait lens, since the bokeh is nice and smooth too - the only thing I'd be worried about there is that it might be a little too sharp... It's not flattering when something shows every single pore ;)
-
I still haven't tried the Canon 100 macro.
Does anyone know how it performs in sharpness compared to the 180L? The thing is, I wouldn't even use it for macros most of the time. More like a portrait lens in the studio with big light sources, shooting at f/8.
The samples that Gary posted shows very similar sharpness that my 135L gives. How does the 100 macro compare, considering it's not an L?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have the 100 and use it for general photography as well as macro. I find it very sharp, probably as sharp or sharper than my 200/2.8L. I don't know about the 180 directly as I don't have it (wouldn't mind though).
-
I am puzzled: if you prefer the FOV of the 180 in 35mm to the 200mm in DX format, why not try something like the Nikon 105mm micro?
[ Hi BJL; It's all about working distance; I owned a Nikon 105 prior to the 200 and was constantly disappointed by the 12 inch working distance versus the 19 and a half inch WD of the 200. Secondly, the bokeh of the 105 is so sharp that it was distracting when backgrounds came up 'too' sharp. The 200 always had a wonderful background bokeh! ]
With the closer pixel spacing of Nikon options like the D200 and D2X compared to any of the Canon 35mm format DSLR's, the same maximum macro magnification (say 1:1) gives a more detailed image of a smaller field of view. For example, where a 1:1 macro gives a 10MP image of a certain subject with the D200, the 5D gives only about 6MP on the same portion of the subject.
[ It's not about pixels! It's about what I see when I am shooting! I want to see things in a fashion that I have become accustomed to. I don't want to crop from a frame shot via compromises. I owned the 200 for about 5 years and shot approximately 15,000 frames. I used tubes; TC's; 5T & 6T and that jewel the PN-11. All of these were my tools to get beyond 1:1. I was never disappointed. All I wanted was a digital camera which allowed me to see the same way and download the images instead of scanning 'chromes. When I tested all of the Nikon bodies with my 200, I was disappointed with the FOV and especially with the colour output from their software. I wanted to "see" in full frame.
I am well versed in Photoshop, but I don't want to spend forever on colour correction. The 180 on the 5D shooting RAW and taken into PS via tweaked Camera Raw settings is as good or better that my old 200 shots after scanning and tweaking the images. I can still use my excellent 5T & 6T with the 180 on a conversion ring. I had to buy tubes for the 180. All in all; I am better off with what is comfortable to the way I shoot.
I threw the baby out with the bathwater only after every attempt to keep the Nikkor glass. I have no post cognitive dissonance about my purchase. I bought tools to suit 'my' way of shooting rather than compromises which would have changed 'my' formula for shooting flowers.
I hope this is clear and I thankyou for your question. ]
-
Your comparison of a 200/105mm on the F5 and then making conclusions regarding Dx chipped camera is not appropriate. One must adapt their thinking to the format in use, even if the bodies appear near identical. The FF film with the 200 has a subject to camera difference of X. To get the same framing of the subject with a Dx chipped camera, one must move back significantly, changing perspective. A shorter FL macro substitutes perfectly.
With the D200, the perfect comparison lens doesn't exactly exist in the macro line. We would be using a 135mm macro lens. But, there is no need for exactness. Who says 200 is perfect. You just want the subject distance to be in a zone you concider appropriate.
The new 105 VR Macro is a fair substitute, with nearly the same subject distance (a little less) as the 200mm on a film camera, with the added advantages of more dof and Vibration Reduction to aid in handholding.
You don't need FF do do macro and you didn't get BJL point about the density of the chip being advantageous in close up work.
I don't think you tried your 200 or 105 on a DX camera as your discussion on subject difference was apparently only based on film experience. Digital is a new world.
Bob
-
Your comparison of a 200/105mm on the F5 and then making conclusions regarding Dx chipped camera is not appropriate. One must adapt their thinking to the format in use, even if the bodies appear near identical. The FF film with the 200 has a subject to camera difference of X. To get the same framing of the subject with a Dx chipped camera, one must move back significantly, changing perspective. A shorter FL macro substitutes perfectly.
( I don't wish to "adapt". That was my premise. Your moving back "adaptation" is and was unacceptable, to me.)
With the D200, the perfect comparison lens doesn't exactly exist in the macro line. We would be using a 135mm macro lens. But, there is no need for exactness. Who says 200 is perfect. You just want the subject distance to be in a zone you concider appropriate.
( Your opinion, once again. I felt that the best working distance for 'me' was 200 mm. )
The new 105 VR Macro is a fair substitute, with nearly the same subject distance (a little less) as the 200mm on a film camera, with the added advantages of more dof and Vibration Reduction to aid in handholding.
( This is of no use to me as it isn't something I do. Macro is on a tripod for 'me'. And once again a compromise, in 'my' opininion. )
You don't need FF do do macro and you didn't get BJL point about the density of the chip being advantageous in close up work.
( You make a lot of assumptions! 'I' need full frame to shoot macro in 'my' way! BJL's point was understood and similarly inefficient to 'my' requirement. )
I don't think you tried your 200 or 105 on a DX camera as your discussion on subject difference was apparently only based on film experience. Digital is a new world.
( You have stepped over the line herein! Obviously, YOU DON"T THINK! Aside from the umbrage I take from your insult, you act like a Nikon bigot who can't accept the simplicity of my situation because of your overzealousness towards Nikon products?
The tests of "my" 200 mm. Micro lens were on the D2X and performed in front of staff at Henry's Camera in Ottawa, Ontario. Mr. Peter Waiser, of Henry's, can verify this since I borrowed his camera to shoot my tests. I did not test a 105 because I had sold it years ago when I found it unacceptable for my work.
As for your 'new world'; stay in it, because your opinions about photography and 'my' requirements couldn't be further from my reality. )
Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Owen, calm down.
This is not a war.
This is a discussion forum.
These people are trying to help, by sharing their opinions with you and the original poster.
Your hostility is so strong that I suspect you may not get help the next time you ask for it.
-
Quote: ( You have stepped over the line herein! Obviously, YOU DON"T THINK! Aside from the umbrage I take from your insult, you act like a Nikon bigot who can't accept the simplicity of my situation because of your overzealousness towards Nikon products?
It's not about Nikon, it is about APS-C and Dx based camera's. But if you're happy with your setup, so be it. If you're happy, then I am too.
I'm sure you're aware that typing in Caps or Bold is yelling and an aggressive posture. Maybe not.
Bob
-
thanks for all the replies and the passionate debates this topic has sparked.
My initial question however was about the best macro lens for the 5D. Money not being an object, is the 180 mm 3.5 Canon the ultimate winner? Quality is what I am after. Bear in mind I would like to get as macro as possible. And it is for macro shooting only rather than using it for other situations.
-
Cost is an issue however, esp with the more expensive lenses. Any recommendation on cheaper sites/countries (compared to London, UK) would be greatly appreciated.
-
Quote: It's not about Nikon, it is about APS-C and Dx based camera's. But if you're happy with your setup, so be it. If you're happy, then I am too.
I'm sure you're aware that typing in Caps or Bold is yelling and an aggressive posture. Maybe not.
Bob
( Thankyou for the lesson in netiquette. I was under the impression that Caps was for aggression and Bold was for emphasis. )
Bob, you called me a liar on this forum. Of course I am upset. I stated in my first post that I tried my 200 Micro on a D2X and the colour reproduction was not up to snuff, for me. You then denigrate me in your last post by stating; " - I don't think you tried your 200 or 105 on a DX camera as your discussion on subject difference was apparently only based on film experience. -"
Why would I have said it if I hadn't tried it?
I apologise to the forum for my natural response to being called a liar.
I would hope Bob, that you are gentleman enough to offer an apology for the denigration.
Sincerely,
Owen
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
-
JPlayer, I don't have the specifics you are looking for as the only Canon Macro I own is an old FD 100 which won't work on your 5D.
In general
Short FL's (50-60mm) - Compact, can often be used as a normal, subject to lens distance can get a little crowded at 1:1, some are better than others, plenty of tests about to compare quality, common in used market. Typically cheapest of Macros type lenses.
Long FL's(180-200) - bigger, biggest draw is significant subject to lens distance. shallow depth of field, subject to movement (camera or subject), usually good quality, not common in used market. Typically more expensive
Mid FL (100) - kind of a compromise between long and short, excellent portrait lens with FF camera (may have to blur (in PS) to take down detail in women). Not too short, not too long.
personally I'm biased towards 100mm with FF or 60mm for APS-C/DX dslr's.
Hope this helps,
Bob
-
Bob, you called me a liar on this forum. Of course I am upset. I stated in my first post that I tried my 200 Micro on a D2X and the colour reproduction was not up to snuff, for me. You then denigrate me in your last post by stating; " - I don't think you tried your 200 or 105 on a DX camera as your discussion on subject difference was apparently only based on film experience. -"
Why would I have said it if I hadn't tried it?
Well, I'll concede I responded to the "emphasis" in your post to BJL. Your first post didn't register.
I didn't ever call you a liar. Those are pretty strong words.
What I said is you can't put a 200 on a DX/APS-C chip camera and draw any comparison to the 200's use on a FF camera. If you like the "perspective" of a 200 on a full frame, that is based upon subject distance. really nothing else. You can get the identical perspective with a shorter FL lense on a reduced chip camera.
Are you a FF zealot? If you are, thats OK, many are.
Out,
bob
-
JPlayer-
You may want to consider whether or not you will ever hand-hold the lens. The ~100mm varieties tend to be easier to hand-hold if you need too.
Also if you want to do bugs, not just flowers, etc, then the extra working distance of the 150+mm lenses will come in handy and potentially save you from a bee sting
Good luck, I personally have a Canon 100mm coming in next week, and I'll have the money for a 5D together in a month.
-
Since I used this thread for my 5D/Macro Lens research, I thought I would duplicate the following post I made on the thread I started:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=10831 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10831)
What is the best Macro, you ask? Is sure does depend on the application, doesn't it.
Once again, preliminary tests surprised me. I thought for sure I would LOVE the EF 180mm 3.5 (it's a great lens) but for the bulk of my Macro shooting needs, I have to say the 100mm 2.8 seems to fit nicely right where I need it. I sure wish it came with "L" glass, even though the area of focus seems sharp enough to please me.
First, the 180mm is not user-friendly for me. I use the Linhof Ballhead with a Quick Release Plate and the plate has to be removed from the bottom of the 5D and mounted to the tripod mount on the lens. (A spare could easily fix this issue.) Second, the lens is really heavy and removing the tripod mount is extra work to achieve awkward hand holding. Third, it takes me too far away from my subjects. And fourth, the 2.8 on the 100mm achieves the "editorial" feel that is my style.
For portraits, the 180mm took me 12 feet away from the subject and all I could get was a basic headshot. I have a great daylight studio but by NYC standards, it's a small space. 12 feet is nearing my maximum distance and I need more than just someone's head.
At 12 feet, the 100mm gave me a generous 3/4 body. If I want a tight headshot, all I have to do is move in closer to the model.
The 180mm was an awful distance for editorial food. The camera has to be too far away to capture the outer edges of a single table setting and then there's no room to crop. The 100mm seemed perfect. I could sit at my favorite cafe in the South of France with little need to slide my chair back. With ease, I can get the whole table setting and/or come in tight on that lovely dessert. The 100mm feels VERY natural in my hands and I could see myself using it off the tripod a lot.
Other than butterflies, I have no desire to shoot insects or see insect hairs. I need a Macro that's as versatile as possible and gives me great "lifestyle" imagery. So far, the 100mm 2.8 looks like a keeper.
-
Misty, I have been reading your blog so thanks for your input. I particularly like the way your new experience in the search of best 5D lenses unfolds over time.
Very helpful too!