Canon Macro Lenses. What are you using?
 

I have a Canon EOS D30 with only the standard included lens and I have been looking at some of the fine macro lenses available. What are you using?

100mm f2.8

IMO the higher the focal length the better.

Interesting. I am still learning but I would have thought a shorter focal length would result in a larger image as in you are closer to the subject, povided you can get close that is.

all macros allow you to go 1:1 so the focal length just determines how far you can be in order to achieve that 1:1 ratio. I use a 150mm f2.8 by Sigma

I have this lens and love it.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM

same here

EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Very nice!

I wanted that lens sooooo desperately! I'm still kicking myself for being impatient and purchasing the one I did.

My lens is perfectly good . . . but I love the IS lenses.

Ditto

This seems like a popular choice. How about this one? Anyone owned or tried it? I know it's manual focus, not an issue for me.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

I like the 5x. I think that would make some great polyp pictures.

It is very, very hard to use as it doesn't focus to infinity. The working distance is something like 30 cm at 1:1 and 4 cm at 1:5. I would read up on it before buying, it isn't really for taking pics of anything alive.

I played around with one at the camera store for nearly an hour and focusing on a tripod with a focusing rail took 1 to 2 minutes per shot. That is with pro help as well. Very capable lens but for very specific uses.

I don't use canon but pretty much all my macros are shot with the 150mm 2.8 Sigma. I like the added distance I get with 150mm compared to a 100mm.

I think when one is spending a lot of money on lenses, they should really be as useful as possible.

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 is also a great lens for portraiture.

If the budget can be stretched, the IS USM is a much better choice than the USM. I pretty much have to use a tripod with my lens: being that it doesn't have the image stabilization.

Yes the IS model has better optics and is sharper.

But why would you ever need IS on this lens? When will you be taking macro shots below 1/100 or 1/160 (on crop body)?

I can't hold the camera steady enough to use my macro lens without a tripod. 90% of my freehand photos come out blurry. I do sometimes take the camera with me while fishing, and I don't want to drag a tripod along: in addition to all of my fly gear and the camera.

But when you're shooting outside your shutter should be higher than 1/100s meaning camera shake wouldn't cause any blur.

Not when I'm tucked away in an eddy, in the shade, along the Bow, trying to get a photo of trout scales.

Edit: I should add, I'm lucky if my shutter is 1/60 in most of the conditions I shoot in.

You don't need a $1000 lens to get good macro shots pictures.
here is Canon's Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM (i don't know if they took that pic with that lens but looks good) http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Here is an old Nikon 995
If i zoom in and crop it will be very close to what they got.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...sont/Frost.jpg
.
And here is a $200 Canon D10 macro shots.
http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...6/IMG_0549.jpg
.
Here is just zoom in and crop on the pic above (no editing, just Canon's internal viewer crop & save feature ) i was amazed to see the sparkles. can you imagine what insects see! Its like an Avatar movie out there that we don't even pay attention to. Scroll back up to the original and you will see the sparkles, now that you now what to look for.
http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...6/IMG_0547.jpg
.
http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...6/IMG_0542.jpg
.
i don't have a zoom & crop on this one but it looks a lot like spider web!
http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...6/IMG_0537.jpg
.
http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...6/IMG_0543.jpg
.

UV filter on or off for macro shots of coral? Thank you.

id say off. uv filter doesnt do anything to benefit a digital image.

you're only adding a cheap piece of glass that will degrade the image quality

consider using Kenko tubes on your existing lens. It shortens the focal length... ie reduces the minimum focusing distance so you can get your camera closer to the subject. Using these will decrease your f/stops though.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Tube_Set.html

If anyone is interested, I could be convinced to sell my Canon 100mm macro f/2.8 (not IS). It's $650 plus tax when new in stores... my lens is mint, would accept $550 or a trade for a fisheye (Canon 15mm f/2.8 or Tokina Canon mount 10-17mm f/3.5).

I have this macro lens but am also quite happy with the results using kenko tubes on my 50mm f/1.2L or my 70-200mm f/2.8 L w/ IS, hence the 100mm macro is redundant.

Get the Tamron 2.8 90mm macro. It's a fantastic lens, great optics and a smidgen cheaper than the 100mm Canon.

It came highly recommended to me and I would recommend it to anyone!

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

Sometimes i think lense helps but capture a good photos also requires skill. For example, me, I have the Canon 100mm macro f/2.8 but my photos still come out looks like crap. Kien showed me couple tricks but again I can't produce a great pictures with tripod and all tools. So unless you think you already max out the best shot that your camera can do then any macro lenses will help. Else the macro lenses will just be another piece collecting dust in the draw like mine.

Needs a lot of practice to get a good photo.

Doh! Didn't read a the later posts. Double post

Try these settings...
copied from my post at the thread HOW TO SHOOT PICS
http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/sho...t=88871&page=2

"To take these photos, I used Tv mode on the SLR, which means I forced it to use a certain shutter speed and the computer calculates the rest (aperture, auto ISO). Specifically, I used a tripod and forced the shutter to stay open for 1.6 seconds. This meant that the computer would have used the smallest aperture so that the photo wasn't over exposed. Another effect of a small aperture is that the field of depth is wide so most of the subject is in focus.

Exact specs are: Shutter 1.6s, aperture f/16, ISO 100, manual focus
Equipment: Canon 5D mkII, lens EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM, tripod, 20mm Kinko tube to shorten focal length
Editing: shot in RAW, used Canon Digital Professional, increased brightness/contrast/saturation/sharpness, cropped, and exported to 1200 pixel (long side) size

Don't fuss the details too much, most important things were the $30 tripod, shutting off the powerhead, and using Tv mode at 1.6 seconds (lots of light from my 250w metal halide in a 20" deep tank, if your light is dimmer, use a longer shutter speed)"

just wondering if anyone has experience with the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Lens.

I've used one and they are tough to control at the best of times, would be really hard for tank shots. The unique thing about them is their minimum focus distance but lack of being able to focus to infinity. That means you can get extremely close to the subject but also means you NEED to be extremely close.

I am using a borrowed efs 60mm and like it. Given the opportunity to buy one I would go for a 100mm, although I am shooting on a 40D and so am not full frame. That 100mm IS would be a nice addition to my camera bag :)


Dan

A Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro on a 7D is what I use, wish I knew what I was doing....

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/03/11/asuhyper.jpg

i know the lack of focus at infinity will be a problem. What is your recollection about the maximum distance you can work at at 1x?

I can't recall but it's not far. With no auto focus a tripod and focus rail is a must. At 5X magnification you can literally fill the frame with a single letter of fine newspaper text.

It's a fun lens but you need to be patient.

Misread, sorry

thanks for all the info. i actually decided against getting this lens - its just too restrictive in terms of the focus range.

what i did was get a set of polaroid extension tubes.
http://www.amazon.ca/Polaroid-Focus-.../dp/B004VNH18Q

I took a few shots using the tubes and my canon t2i, with a f1.8 50mm lens. the normal focus distance is about 1.5 feet. It really isn't a macro lens at all. But with the tubes i was able get with in inches of the subject.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8103/8...38d6e394_c.jpg
IMG_4765 by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/93342758@N02/]
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8243/8...7f4ce7bb_c.jpg
IMG_4764 by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/93342758@N02/]
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8237/8...f6821ea3_c.jpg
IMG_4763 by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/93342758@N02/]
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8365/8...4a1e7026_c.jpg
IMG_4762 by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/93342758@N02/]

I'm going start testing this with my 100mm/f2.8 - can't wait. I'll report on resutls.

Here is a few shots using a canon t2i with a 100mm/f2.8 and polaroid extension tubes. all the shots were done in moonlighting with incand lighting in the background. most are long exposure shots shot at 1600iso.

The extension tubes are fantastic and allows you to get very close to the subject. however, with the tubes the lens no longer focuses to infinity - you are limited in working distance as the lens will fall out of focus if you are shooting too far back. However, this is very manageable.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8087/8...40fc5696_c.jpg
IMG_4772 by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/93072545@N02/]
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8378/8...18c9a84c_c.jpg
IMG_4773 by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/93072545@N02/]
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8...893b6eae_c.jpg
IMG_4775 by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/93072545@N02/]
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8229/8...aa8a4b60_c.jpg
IMG_4777 by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/93072545@N02/]

Nice shots!

This motivated me to pull out my camera gear again this morning.

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (but shut off the IS on a tri pod as it adds a bit of wobble to the shutter). All three kenko tubes in the set. Canon 5D mk II

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...88765626_n.jpg

Poci
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...39255212_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...71394314_n.jpg

Frogspawn head
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...92441357_n.jpg

Blastomusa
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...98878114_n.jpg

Acanthastrea
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...47503004_n.jpg

purple rim green monti
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...54357585_n.jpg

birdsnest
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...82299275_n.jpg

hammer
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...39388819_n.jpg

really nice shots.

do you recall what iso setting you were using?

Thanks!

I cranked the aperture to 32 in Av mode. I probably didn't need it that small, just where the dial settled. I wanted to force a small aperture to increase the field of depth so more of the shot was in focus. The camera processor then set auto ISO at 3200 (that's why the shot looks faded a bit instead of rich) and the shutter speed in most shots settled somewhere around 0.4 to 1.4 seconds. With such a long shutter speed (Tv), it was important to use a tripod and use either a timer or a remote as I would shake the whole thing if I pressed the trigger on the camera directly. Also all power heads in the tank were unplugged. I'm thinking that I didn't need to crank the aperture so small as that forced a high ISO and longer shutter speed than necessary. I've had some luck before using Tv mode and forcing a long shutter around 1 second and let the camera calculate the rest.

i shoot everything in Av mode. However, i try not to get above 1600 ISO and try for as low as possible. I seldom use auto ISO - and I let the camera adjust aperture speed as required. The only issue with that is if the exposure is too long you may get stray light distortions.