[mini-review] Initial impressions: MP-E 65 vs Canon 100 & Sigma 105
Troy Piggins
shooting macro for about 9 months with my Canon 100 and also the
Sigma 105 macro lenses. I got to a level where I am very
comfortable shooting at 1:1 minimum working distance. Lately I
have been adding extension tubes and almost exclusively shooting
between 1:1.5 and 2:1 to get used to slightly higher
magnifications.
I have been studying, saving, and reading about the MP-E 65 since
the beginning. I thought I understood all of the implications,
was comfortable shooting up to 2:1 magnification, so decided to
take the plunge and get the MP-E 65. It arrived last Monday, but
it's only this weekend I have had a chance to use it as I had
intended - shooting bugs.
It's quite heavy compared to the others. MP-E 65 is 0.73kg,
Canon 100 is 0.60kg, and the Sigma 105 is 0.48kg. Not so heavy
that it's difficult to handle, but noticably more than the Canon
100 that I'm used to.
First thing I did was wind that baby out to 5x mag to see...
well, just to see. It gets long. At 1:1 the lens is only 98mm
long, shorter than the Canon 100, and much shorter than the Sigma
105 at 1:1. But extended it stretches to over 200mm.
I'll post photos for comparison when I get a chance.
If you've read about the MP-E 65, you'll know it's manual focus
only. There are no switches on the lens, and only one dial which
controls the magnification factor. It only shoots from 1:1
lifesize to 5:1 lifesize. There is no infinity focus. You
cannot shoot anything beyond about 100mm in front of the lens.
At 5:1 the WD is only about 40mm.
Time to actually shoot some photos. Mounted the 65 set to 1:1
and off I went. First 3 bugs I found to shoot flew off while I
was moving in to focus. This was never a problem before, because
I'd stay back a comfortable distance with the 100, focus, and
snap a few frames as I moved in closer refocusing as I went. At
least you'd get some shots as you approach 1:1.
Finally did find some plant bugs that I could get close enough to
for 1:1 shooting. Unfortunately they were a little big to fit in
the frame. Again, with the Canon 100 you can just step back at
slightly less than 1:1 to fill the frame. With the MP-E you
cannot do that. So for bigger bugs, you'll only be shooting part
of them. I was aware of that beforehand, just thought I'd make
the point here and it's still something I'll have to get used to.
Let's try some higher mag shots. Wound it out to 3:1. Oh, the
lens has extended and now my flash diffuser is sitting back half
way along the barrel. I usually have my flash mounted on a
bracket with the front of the diffuser top left of lens and right
at the end of it.
So with this type of setup, you'll have to adjust the bracket
every time mag is adjusted. And considering the difference in
length of the lens from 1:1 to 5:1, it's a pain if changing mag a
lot. Helpful to pick a mag before shooting and stick with it,
rather than changing mags - the bug would take off while you're
mucking around with mag, bracket, flash etc.
This would not be a problem if using one of the macro specific
flash systems like the MT-24EX Twin Light or the MR-14EX Ring
Light which mount on the front of tlens, so as it extends the
flash automatically goes with it.
I know there are MP-E 65 users that do use bracketed speedlites
as I do and they take absolutely beautifully lit macros. And I
can't afford the MT-24EX at the moment. I suspect it's either my
technique and/or bracket system. I'll have to play around with
it a bit.
The other thing I noticed is something I did not think of with
all the reading I had done. With the other lenses I had used,
even with extension tubes, if you're shooting at some particular
distance and want higher magnification, you focus in and move
towards the subject more. Seems logical. With the 65, because
it extends more than it's working distance when going from 1:1 to
5:1, you actually move backwards while rotating from 1:1 to 5:1
keeping the subject in focus.
As the magnification increases, camera stability gets harder and
harder to control. Every little movement is accentuated. I used
a broom handle gripped with my left hand at the same time as the
flash bracket. Works like a sort of monopod, but very quick and
easy to change angle and height. Reckon you'd need to do this
from about 2:1 and higher mags.
I've read posts from people saying that tripods and focus rails
are a must for macro. This is not true. In fact, I think it's
more of a hinderance. There is no way you could keep up with
bugs with a tripod.
I haven't done any tests yet, but understand that diffraction
softening comes into play a fair bit at higher mags. At 1:1 I
try to keep below f/16 to minimise this, usually shooting at
f/11. At 2:1 I drop it down to f/9. I have read that this
should continue 3:1 f/7.1 max, 4:1 f/6.3 max, and 5:1 f/5.6 max.
These are for maximum sharpness. You can use higher apertures,
but image will soften.
Not sure if it comes with new lens, I got mine second hand, but I
got a hood with it. I will never use it. You're too close and I
value the real estate between lens and subject. We're only
talking less than 100mm at 1:1 and 40mm WD for 5:1. You need all
of that.
Summing up, it's clear I need to get a lot more practice with
this very specialised lens. I will definitely keep the 100mm
macro lens. Might even keep it mounted to start the day's
shooting, and swap to an opportunity where I think the 65 will be
better. The 100 is just more flexible, even with tubes on.
For the type of shooting I have done to date, I think the MP-E 65
will shine for things like dewdrop refractions, very small bugs,
very stationary bugs, and maybe some still life abstract type
macro. But I don't see it as the macro lens that would stay on
my camera... unless I get another body.
--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.
Paul Furman
> ...extended it stretches to over 200mm.
Semantic question: Is it really a 60mm lens with this extension or a
200mm lens? No value judgements attached, the most extreme (archaic)
Nikon 'micro' lenses are wide angle by their numbers and used with very
large extensions, I just somehow understood that the extension effects
the actual focal length, like: as you focus, the 'strictly defined'
focal length changes and the stated focal length is assumed at infinity
focus. Again: no accusations, just pedantic inquiry. Since this lens
doesn't do infinity, how do they figure the focal length? My guess is
without mount & mirror obstructions, it would focus at infinity with
60mm of extension.
Most modern 100mm macro lenses are said to move elements around to
transform to a shorter/wider focal length as they approach 1:1 which
seems to contradict my assumptions. This effect is apparent as
magnification changes wildly while focusing closer and I've heard folks
say older models lacking this transforming/zooming-out feature are
easier to work with as they require less moving of the camera. A
focusing rail moving the whole rig is supposed to be the ideal setup.
Once more, I'm not saying the 65 MP-E is cheating or inadequate, I'm
just trying to understand.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Troy Piggins
Good question. I won't pretend to understand the physics
of optics etc, but I suspect that the "focal length" of consumer
lenses is actually an effective focal length of some sort.
Come to think of it, and if I understand what you're
saying/asking, you could be right. The lens body (98mm) is
longer than its focal length (65mm) to start with. So maybe what
they've done is sort of built-in extension tubes, and that's how
the lens works.
Interesting. I might ask around some long-time MP-E 65 users and
ask.
D-Mac
>
> For the type of shooting I have done to date, I think the MP-E 65
> will shine for things like dewdrop refractions, very small bugs,
> very stationary bugs, and maybe some still life abstract type
> macro. But I don't see it as the macro lens that would stay on
> my camera... unless I get another body.
>
Troy...
Is there some reason you are cross posting between a digital group and a
'35mm' group? People who choose to read both groups are going to get
pretty pissed off with you if this is the method of posting you intend
to make in your new home(s).
It sort of defeats the purpose of having different groups if switching
between them only produces identical posts. The reason this group split
from the original digital group was too much traffic to sift through.
Most people who read groups are not idiots. To assume they are and cross
post to near identical groups in case they magically miss one of your
posts is (IMHO) not going to keep you out of kill files for very long.
The last bastion of Photographers is the two groups you cross post to.
Try not contribute to this one becoming the fucking mess Aus.Photo has
become please?
--
visit www.D-Mac.info
to relieve the tension...
Usenet is after all Usenet!
Helen
Congrats on the MP-E 65 Troy!!
It is one serious, monster of a lens.
At that magnification it will definitely take time to master, so give
yourself time.
Good luck!
Helen
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>
>> For the type of shooting I have done to date, I think the MP-E 65
>> will shine for things like dewdrop refractions, very small bugs,
>> very stationary bugs, and maybe some still life abstract type
>> macro. But I don't see it as the macro lens that would stay on
>> my camera... unless I get another body.
>
> Troy...
Hi Doug. You are Doug today, aren't you?
> Is there some reason you are cross posting between a digital group and a
> '35mm' group?
Yes. It's a mini-review of a lens that can be used on both 35mm
SLR cameras and digital SLR cameras. It's completely on-topic in
both groups unless someone can point me in the direction of an
authoritative cite otherwise.
And I hardly think you are the right person to accuse /anyone/ of
crossposting anything - particularly when it's on-topic.
I know you chastised me recently, not as D-Mac but one of your
other failed attempts to post under another alias - 2Squid or
something like that - for posting photos to the 35mm group. This
isn't photos, it's equipment. And even if it was photos, it'd be
on topic.
> People who choose to read both groups are going to get
> pretty pissed off with you if this is the method of posting you intend
> to make in your new home(s).
Firstly, if their newsreader is any good at all it will recognise
a crosspost so after they're read it in one it will not appear in
the others.
Second, if they do come across it in both groups, I'm sure
they'll recognise that it's on topic and won't have any problem
with it. I'm sure they'll let me know otherwise.
Thirdly, it's not my new home. I subscribed to these groups
before I had even heard of aus.photo. The fact that I choose not
to subscribe to that group any more because of all the flame wars
between you and every man and his dog does not make this my new
home.
Fourth, who are _you_ to chastise _me_ on when and where to post?
You post whatever crap you like, wherever you like. Doesn't
matter if it's flame-bait, racist comments against Americans,
posting under multiple aliases/nyms to appear like you actually
have any supporters, dodgy ebay seller comments, posting photos
deliberately to boost google ratings on your business sites, or
whatever. You have admitted to, or there's proof of, all those
things I just mentioned.
Then again, you are the expert on how to piss people off, so
maybe you're right.
> It sort of defeats the purpose of having different groups if switching
> between them only produces identical posts. The reason this group split
> from the original digital group was too much traffic to sift through.
>
> Most people who read groups are not idiots. To assume they are and cross
> post to near identical groups in case they magically miss one of your
> posts is (IMHO) not going to keep you out of kill files for very long.
Once again, you're the expert on how to get into killfiles.
Do me a favour, add /me/ to /your/ killfile so you never have to
read my on-topic, cross-posted to relevant groups, 2 group
maximum, posts and I never have to read your followup containing
such hypocritical bullshit. Please.
> The last bastion of Photographers is the two groups you cross post to.
> Try not contribute to this one becoming the fucking mess Aus.Photo has
> become please?
That's exactly why I decided to discontinue reading aus.photo.
If _you_ stayed out of aus.photo, it wouldn't be the mess it's in
now. You are the single-biggest contributor to its demise. I
have no doubt that /everyone/ in that group would agree. But
you can't control yourself enough to refrain from adding to it.
If you're going to respond to this, make sure you quote all of
it. You have a tendency to snip the good questions/comments to
take it all out of context.
Troy Piggins
>>
>> For the type of shooting I have done to date, I think the MP-E 65
>> will shine for things like dewdrop refractions, very small bugs,
>> very stationary bugs, and maybe some still life abstract type
>> macro. But I don't see it as the macro lens that would stay on
>> my camera... unless I get another body.
>
> It is one serious, monster of a lens.
> At that magnification it will definitely take time to master, so give
> yourself time.
> Good luck!
> Helen
Thanks Helen. It's going to be a fun ride :)
D-Mac
>
> If you're going to respond to this, make sure you quote all of
> it. You have a tendency to snip the good questions/comments to
> take it all out of context.
>
As big a fucking jerk as always.
Plonked here too!
D-Mac
>
> Yes. It's a mini-review of a lens that can be used on both 35mm
> SLR cameras and digital SLR cameras. It's completely on-topic in
> both groups unless someone can point me in the direction of an
> authoritative cite otherwise.
>
Not that an arrogant asshole like you was ever bothered with manners...
http://www.d-mac.info/charters/R.P.E.35mm_charter.rtf
http://www.d-mac.info/charters/R.P.digital.slr-systems_charter.rtf
Pay attention to the bit about personal attacks -- Which you just
initiated when I politely asked you stop acting like a fuckwit,
Fuckwit.
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>
>> Yes. It's a mini-review of a lens that can be used on both 35mm
>> SLR cameras and digital SLR cameras. It's completely on-topic in
>> both groups unless someone can point me in the direction of an
>> authoritative cite otherwise.
>
> Not that an arrogant asshole like you was ever bothered with manners...
>
> http://www.d-mac.info/charters/R.P.E.35mm_charter.rtf
>
> http://www.d-mac.info/charters/R.P.digital.slr-systems_charter.rtf
Thanks Doug(?). www.d-mac.info is certainly one of the world's
most reliable sources of information. I'll download those
documents so you boost your google hits or something...
> Pay attention to the bit about personal attacks -- Which you just
> initiated when I politely asked you stop acting like a fuckwit,
> Fuckwit.
Oh, my. That doesn't sounds like it's in the charter. I didn't
read anything in there about bringing grown-up's words in here.
You're pissing people off, Doug. Better change your alias.
--
Troy Piggins
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>
>> If you're going to respond to this, make sure you quote all of
>> it. You have a tendency to snip the good questions/comments to
>> take it all out of context.
>
> As big a fucking jerk as always.
Read you like the cheap novel you are.
> Plonked here too!
What do you mean "here too"? If you plonked me elsewhere, like
aus.photo, how did you know I'm not posting there any more? Are
you stalking me?
jimkramer
news:200808031...@usenet.piggo.com...
> Recently bought the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens. I've been
> shooting macro for about 9 months with my Canon 100 and also the
> Sigma 105 macro lenses. I got to a level where I am very
> comfortable shooting at 1:1 minimum working distance. Lately I
> have been adding extension tubes and almost exclusively shooting
> between 1:1.5 and 2:1 to get used to slightly higher
> magnifications.
>
> I have been studying, saving, and reading about the MP-E 65 since
> the beginning. I thought I understood all of the implications,
> was comfortable shooting up to 2:1 magnification, so decided to
> take the plunge and get the MP-E 65. It arrived last Monday, but
> it's only this weekend I have had a chance to use it as I had
> intended - shooting bugs.
>
> It's quite heavy compared to the others. MP-E 65 is 0.73kg,
> Canon 100 is 0.60kg, and the Sigma 105 is 0.48kg. Not so heavy
> that it's difficult to handle, but noticably more than the Canon
> 100 that I'm used to.
>
> First thing I did was wind that baby out to 5x mag to see...
> well, just to see. It gets long. At 1:1 the lens is only 98mm
> long, shorter than the Canon 100, and much shorter than the Sigma
> 105 at 1:1. But extended it stretches to over 200mm.
Remember all that if you decide to go looking for focusing rails, I have yet
to find a set that is really long enough and stable enough.
>
> I'll post photos for comparison when I get a chance.
>
> If you've read about the MP-E 65, you'll know it's manual focus
> only. There are no switches on the lens, and only one dial which
> controls the magnification factor. It only shoots from 1:1
> lifesize to 5:1 lifesize. There is no infinity focus. You
> cannot shoot anything beyond about 100mm in front of the lens.
> At 5:1 the WD is only about 40mm.
Manual focus is a bit of a misnomer; there is no focus only a adjustment for
magnification. Pick your magnification and then you have a set working
distance.
>
> Time to actually shoot some photos. Mounted the 65 set to 1:1
> and off I went. First 3 bugs I found to shoot flew off while I
> was moving in to focus. This was never a problem before, because
> I'd stay back a comfortable distance with the 100, focus, and
> snap a few frames as I moved in closer refocusing as I went. At
> least you'd get some shots as you approach 1:1.
Stalking technique and patience; move slowly and hold the camera infront of
your face while you are moving in for the "Kill."
>
> Finally did find some plant bugs that I could get close enough to
> for 1:1 shooting. Unfortunately they were a little big to fit in
> the frame. Again, with the Canon 100 you can just step back at
> slightly less than 1:1 to fill the frame. With the MP-E you
> cannot do that. So for bigger bugs, you'll only be shooting part
> of them. I was aware of that beforehand, just thought I'd make
> the point here and it's still something I'll have to get used to.
See there's a good reason to go out and get a 5D, Think of all that extra
real estate on the sensor! :-)
>
> Let's try some higher mag shots. Wound it out to 3:1. Oh, the
> lens has extended and now my flash diffuser is sitting back half
> way along the barrel. I usually have my flash mounted on a
> bracket with the front of the diffuser top left of lens and right
> at the end of it.
>
> So with this type of setup, you'll have to adjust the bracket
> every time mag is adjusted. And considering the difference in
> length of the lens from 1:1 to 5:1, it's a pain if changing mag a
> lot. Helpful to pick a mag before shooting and stick with it,
> rather than changing mags - the bug would take off while you're
> mucking around with mag, bracket, flash etc.
>
> This would not be a problem if using one of the macro specific
> flash systems like the MT-24EX Twin Light or the MR-14EX Ring
> Light which mount on the front of tlens, so as it extends the
> flash automatically goes with it.
The MT-24EX is much easier to use, but: the flash heads get in the way at
high magnification, the camera looks that much more intimidating to insects
and your fly away rate will be higher. When you get it, invest in some
diffusers and I am still looking for some flash bracket extenders to pull
the flash heads back about 5cm.
>
> I know there are MP-E 65 users that do use bracketed speedlites
> as I do and they take absolutely beautifully lit macros. And I
> can't afford the MT-24EX at the moment. I suspect it's either my
> technique and/or bracket system. I'll have to play around with
> it a bit.
>
> The other thing I noticed is something I did not think of with
> all the reading I had done. With the other lenses I had used,
> even with extension tubes, if you're shooting at some particular
> distance and want higher magnification, you focus in and move
> towards the subject more. Seems logical. With the 65, because
> it extends more than it's working distance when going from 1:1 to
> 5:1, you actually move backwards while rotating from 1:1 to 5:1
> keeping the subject in focus.
Don't use the magnification as a focus ring because you will run the front
element into your subject, you don't want to scratch that front element.
>
> As the magnification increases, camera stability gets harder and
> harder to control. Every little movement is accentuated. I used
> a broom handle gripped with my left hand at the same time as the
> flash bracket. Works like a sort of monopod, but very quick and
> easy to change angle and height. Reckon you'd need to do this
> from about 2:1 and higher mags.
After about 2:1 you will also want to consider using high speed flash sync
and manual settings to help stabilize you hand held work.
>
> I've read posts from people saying that tripods and focus rails
> are a must for macro. This is not true. In fact, I think it's
> more of a hinderance. There is no way you could keep up with
> bugs with a tripod.
>
> I haven't done any tests yet, but understand that diffraction
> softening comes into play a fair bit at higher mags. At 1:1 I
> try to keep below f/16 to minimise this, usually shooting at
> f/11. At 2:1 I drop it down to f/9. I have read that this
> should continue 3:1 f/7.1 max, 4:1 f/6.3 max, and 5:1 f/5.6 max.
> These are for maximum sharpness. You can use higher apertures,
> but image will soften.
It depends on the camera, the subject and the lighting. There are always
trade offs to make when selecting the F stop. Make sure you are comfortable
with using USM to sharpen the images. Eventually you may want to look at
focus stacking images for stationary subjects, but that is of little use in
the "real world."
>
> Not sure if it comes with new lens, I got mine second hand, but I
> got a hood with it. I will never use it. You're too close and I
> value the real estate between lens and subject. We're only
> talking less than 100mm at 1:1 and 40mm WD for 5:1. You need all
> of that.
>
The lens hood is extra, doesn't come with the lens, and is a waste of money.
> Summing up, it's clear I need to get a lot more practice with
> this very specialised lens. I will definitely keep the 100mm
> macro lens. Might even keep it mounted to start the day's
> shooting, and swap to an opportunity where I think the 65 will be
> better. The 100 is just more flexible, even with tubes on.
The MP-E 65 is a specialty lens and if you use it like one you will be happy
with it, if you were expecting a general purpose lens you will not be happy
with it.
>
> For the type of shooting I have done to date, I think the MP-E 65
> will shine for things like dewdrop refractions, very small bugs,
> very stationary bugs, and maybe some still life abstract type
> macro. But I don't see it as the macro lens that would stay on
> my camera... unless I get another body.
Yet another excuse to get a 5D. :-) Enjoy the lens and practice, practice,
practice.
-Jim
jimkramer
news:g74bt0$jit$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> "Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote in message
> news:200808031...@usenet.piggo.com...
>> Recently bought the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens. I've been
>> shooting macro for about 9 months with my Canon 100 and also the
>> Sigma 105 macro lenses. I got to a level where I am very
>> comfortable shooting at 1:1 minimum working distance. Lately I
>> have been adding extension tubes and almost exclusively shooting
>> between 1:1.5 and 2:1 to get used to slightly higher
>> magnifications.
Forgot to mention that using the MP-E 65 can be a Real PITA, but you will
like the results...
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/PITA/PITAGL.htm
-Jim
John McWilliams
definitely not a bug guy, but I appreciate good writing and throroughness.
--
john mcwilliams
Annika1980
I hate to say "I told ya so..."
One other thing worth noting is that as you rack out the lens to
increase magnification, you'll need longer exposure times. This
complicates things since at 5X any lens motion is magnified. Also,
since the DOF is so tiny anyway the tendency is to want to shoot at
higher f/stops (smaller apertures) which also requires more light. It
is a rare bug that can be shot in broad daylight at high magnification
without a lot of flash.
I predict you'll find yourshelf shooting at higher ISOs as well.
That's what makes the MP-E so tough to use. You've got a lens which
you want to shoot at high magnification, small apertures, high ISOs
and must usually be handheld. All of these run counter to what one
normally would expect to do to get a great shot.
I've had some success using a quickflip bracket to mount the
speedlight and then using a Lumiquest Softbox diffuser on the flash.
This method puts the end of the diffuser right beside the end of the
lens. Since the MP-E has it's own tripod mount you can either use it
for the bracket or the camera's mount, depending on the distance you
need the flash to stick out.
Oh yeah, forget using the built-in popup flash with that beast as the
lens will always be in the way.
After using the MP-E lens for a while, going back to the 100mm macro
will feel like cheating. Good luck.
Troy Piggins
> You covered most of the difficulties of using this lens.
> I hate to say "I told ya so..."
Haha. You did, and I knew it was coming.
> One other thing worth noting is that as you rack out the lens to
> increase magnification, you'll need longer exposure times. This
> complicates things since at 5X any lens motion is magnified. Also,
> since the DOF is so tiny anyway the tendency is to want to shoot at
> higher f/stops (smaller apertures) which also requires more light. It
> is a rare bug that can be shot in broad daylight at high magnification
> without a lot of flash.
I rarely shoot macro without fill flash anyway.
> I predict you'll find yourshelf shooting at higher ISOs as well.
>
> That's what makes the MP-E so tough to use. You've got a lens which
> you want to shoot at high magnification, small apertures, high ISOs
> and must usually be handheld. All of these run counter to what one
> normally would expect to do to get a great shot.
>
> I've had some success using a quickflip bracket to mount the
> speedlight and then using a Lumiquest Softbox diffuser on the flash.
> This method puts the end of the diffuser right beside the end of the
> lens. Since the MP-E has it's own tripod mount you can either use it
> for the bracket or the camera's mount, depending on the distance you
> need the flash to stick out.
I use a speedlite on a bracket already. I've played with several
different diffusers and have been using the LQ Softbox for some
time. It works very well.
As I said in the OP, the trouble is extending the diffuser as the
lens extends. I'm thinking about some bracket DIY modification
that'll allow the flash to run along a rail parallel to the lens
barrel.
> Oh yeah, forget using the built-in popup flash with that beast as the
> lens will always be in the way.
Same with any macro lens.
> After using the MP-E lens for a while, going back to the 100mm macro
> will feel like cheating. Good luck.
It does already :)
Troy Piggins
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>
>> Recently bought the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens. I've been
>> shooting macro for about 9 months with my Canon 100 and also the
>> Sigma 105 macro lenses. I got to a level where I am very
>> comfortable shooting at 1:1 minimum working distance. Lately I
>> have been adding extension tubes and almost exclusively shooting
>> between 1:1.5 and 2:1 to get used to slightly higher
>> magnifications.
>
> abandoned us. That was my dream lens had I stayed with Canon. Too bad
> Nikon doesn't have a version of that one. I really think you're going to
> fall in love with that lens in the next few days. Anyway, enjoy it and keep
> posting your macro shots.
Thanks Rita. It certainly is a unique lens with some quirky
ways.
Troy Piggins
> jimkramer wrote:
>> "jimkramer" <Newsr...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote in message
>> news:g74bt0$jit$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> "Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:200808031...@usenet.piggo.com...
>>
>> like the results...
>> http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/PITA/PITAGL.htm
>
> Nice review, Troy. I am not really a close up sort of macro guy, and
> definitely not a bug guy, but I appreciate good writing and throroughness.
Thanks John.
Troy Piggins
>* Troy Piggins wrote :
Hi Jim. Thanks for reading my lengthy post :)
>> Recently bought the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens. I've been
>> shooting macro for about 9 months with my Canon 100 and also the
>> Sigma 105 macro lenses. I got to a level where I am very
>> comfortable shooting at 1:1 minimum working distance. Lately I
>> have been adding extension tubes and almost exclusively shooting
>> between 1:1.5 and 2:1 to get used to slightly higher
>> magnifications.
>>
>> I have been studying, saving, and reading about the MP-E 65 since
>> the beginning. I thought I understood all of the implications,
>> was comfortable shooting up to 2:1 magnification, so decided to
>> take the plunge and get the MP-E 65. It arrived last Monday, but
>> it's only this weekend I have had a chance to use it as I had
>> intended - shooting bugs.
<snip />
>> As the magnification increases, camera stability gets harder and
>> harder to control. Every little movement is accentuated. I used
>> a broom handle gripped with my left hand at the same time as the
>> flash bracket. Works like a sort of monopod, but very quick and
>> easy to change angle and height. Reckon you'd need to do this
>> from about 2:1 and higher mags.
>
> After about 2:1 you will also want to consider using high speed flash sync
> and manual settings to help stabilize you hand held work.
Hmm, hadn't thought of that. I usually shoot at around 1/100s to
1/200s at the moment. It seems to be fast enough for up to 2:1
mag. Hadn't considered what it'll be like at up to 5:1.
I suspect the problem will be stability to actually take the shot
at the right time - while the subject is in focus. But once I
get that down, HSS might be the next stop.
>> I've read posts from people saying that tripods and focus rails
>> are a must for macro. This is not true. In fact, I think it's
>> more of a hinderance. There is no way you could keep up with
>> bugs with a tripod.
>>
>> I haven't done any tests yet, but understand that diffraction
>> softening comes into play a fair bit at higher mags. At 1:1 I
>> try to keep below f/16 to minimise this, usually shooting at
>> f/11. At 2:1 I drop it down to f/9. I have read that this
>> should continue 3:1 f/7.1 max, 4:1 f/6.3 max, and 5:1 f/5.6 max.
>> These are for maximum sharpness. You can use higher apertures,
>> but image will soften.
>
> It depends on the camera, the subject and the lighting. There are always
> trade offs to make when selecting the F stop. Make sure you are comfortable
> with using USM to sharpen the images. Eventually you may want to look at
> focus stacking images for stationary subjects, but that is of little use in
> the "real world."
Many of the experts in some forums I participate in use focus
stacking. I had given it a try a couple of times, but the
post-processing time takes all the fun out of it and I decided
against it while shooting 1:1. Think now I need to reconsider.
>> Not sure if it comes with new lens, I got mine second hand, but I
>> got a hood with it. I will never use it. You're too close and I
>> value the real estate between lens and subject. We're only
>> talking less than 100mm at 1:1 and 40mm WD for 5:1. You need all
>> of that.
>>
> The lens hood is extra, doesn't come with the lens, and is a waste of money.
Agreed.
>> Summing up, it's clear I need to get a lot more practice with
>> this very specialised lens. I will definitely keep the 100mm
>> macro lens. Might even keep it mounted to start the day's
>> shooting, and swap to an opportunity where I think the 65 will be
>> better. The 100 is just more flexible, even with tubes on.
>
> The MP-E 65 is a specialty lens and if you use it like one you will be happy
> with it, if you were expecting a general purpose lens you will not be happy
> with it.
Oh I realised that long ago.
>> For the type of shooting I have done to date, I think the MP-E 65
>> will shine for things like dewdrop refractions, very small bugs,
>> very stationary bugs, and maybe some still life abstract type
>> macro. But I don't see it as the macro lens that would stay on
>> my camera... unless I get another body.
>
> Yet another excuse to get a 5D. :-) Enjoy the lens and practice, practice,
> practice.
:) Can't justify a 5D, and I have a couple of EF-S lenses that
won't play nicely on it anyway.
Thanks Jim.
Troy Piggins
:D Nice lynx.
PeteD
LOL... WOW...