Researching Macro lenses. Feedback on use in the field requested

[James G]

I've been concentrating on my macro photography this year. I have been using a Canon 100m L series macro lens which has been excellent. I'm certainly not exploiting it and getting the most from it yet, but I do want to try some more extreme close ups.... probably next season..

In the interim however I have experimented using extension tubes with the existing lens, and frankly I'm not really too satisfied with the results. I'm going to play around with 'static' subjects over the autumn to try and improve my technique.

However, I have also been researching more specialist lenses as an alternative to using extension tubes and have been looking at the Canon MP-E 65mm F2.8 1-5 Macro.

The attraction is the magnification factor, up to 5X that seems to be achievable.

So simple question, does anyone have any actual experience with this lens?

[DanK]

No, but if you are finding the 100mm with extension tubes tough to use, you are likely to find the MP-E 65 even tougher.

Extension tubes with a standard macro lens will yield fine results once you get a good technique. The difficulties are less light and shallower DOF, not a deterioration of optical quality, and those difficulties come with magnification. The best techniques will be the same regardless of which way you boost the magnification. So what's required is a lot of practice (at least if your are as klutzy as I am) and a high tolerance for frustration (which doesn't come naturally to me).

My standard bug-hunting rig is now a 100mm L macro and a 36mm tube. I will post a few shots below. All are with that combination. All were shot with a 50D or a 7D (first generation) and a diffused flash.

My recommendation is to start with a very short extension tube, like a Kenko 12mm. Use that until you are comfortable and satisfied with the results. Then step up to 20mm. And so on.

EDIT: I read your post to mean that you aren't satisfied with the quality of your results, but after posting, I realized that you might mean that you aren't satisfied with the amount of magnification. The normal formula for magnification with tubes doesn't work with macro lenses near minimum working distance--I think because the actual focal length at that distance is less than the nominal--but a full set of Kenko tubes (68mm) will get you roughly 2:1 magnification, I believe. I occasionally use that much, but I find that 36 mm, which is roughly 1.5:1, is in many circumstances hard enough for me to manage, especially when things are moving around and focus is very hard to achieve.

[James G]

Dan, thanks for this.

you are likely to find the MP-E 65 even tougher.

I was expecting this.

My recommendation is to start with a very short extension tube, like a Kenko 12mm. Use that until you are comfortable and satisfied with the results. Then step up to 20mm.

I'm currently getting to grips with a set of 3 (13,21,31mm). I have had some reasonable success using 13mm and the 31mm, but as you have already indicated they do take a little getting used to. I'm persistent by nature so live in hope of more success my 'keepers' are increasing, although being honest those using the extension tubes are still not god enough for me to want to post! Also, I became nervous of them after a near disaster with my first set. They were plastic, with metal mounts and one of them 'broke' and I had a very bad moment when the lens parted company with the body! I had a bit more luck than Donald had recently and caught the lens (not my l series 100mm thankfully). On examination I found that the screws holding the mounting plate to the tube were only a few mm long and screwed directly into the plastic. they were scrapped and replaced with an all metal set!

I read your post to mean that you aren't satisfied with the quality of your results, but after posting, I realized that you might mean that you aren't satisfied with the amount of magnification

I'm actually not satisfied with my technique, but as I indicated above, but am enjoying learning and refining my technique.
The post is more about the best way of getting higher magnification.

I do have a specific 'goal' at present based on achieving better than 1x magnification. Specifically I have been trying to capture shots of Spider Mites. putting aside the issues of getting focus, lighting etc, I want to get a better magnification if that is realistic. I'm also interested in tackling micro insects where better than x1 would help.

My interest in the lens is that it seems to enable x1 through to a best? x5. Since it is pretty expensive (circa £850) I'm not keen to invest if there is no real advantage over the extension tubes.

I'm hoping someone out there actually has the lens and can provide some information to help me reach a conclusion.

[DanK]

James,

EDITED with new information

The MPE-65 achieves higher magnification by moving the lens elements forward, just as tubes do. See https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-mp-e-65/:

This lens accomplishes that task simply by twisting the barrel, which moves the elements away from the film plane, creating the bellows effect.

So, for a given level of magnification, the MPE-65 should be comparably hard to use and should give you the same results as tubes.

For a description of the difficulties in using this lens had high magnifications, check this: http://photo.net/equipment/canon/mp-e-65.

If no one here has experience, you could post a question here: http://www.dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23. It is a small, excellent macro forum.

Re tubes: I only use Kenko, which have metal mounting surfaces. They are solid. The only problem I have had is that after years of use, the 36mm tube in my first set started failing to make electrical contact reliably. I suppose it might have been reparable, but I just bought a new set instead.

Good luck, and keep at it.

Dan

[FeatherMonkey]

Unless my maths/reading is wrong, wouldn't you be getting to 300mm of tubes just to get 3x magnification with a 100mm macro?

Just based on this site http://digitalphotographylive.com/hi...o-photography/ he gets 94mm on a 60mm to get to 3x then uses a teleconverter to get to 6x(4x on ff not quite sure on this). Whilst a nikon hack, can't see why something similar wouldn't work. Also mentions else where general rule 50mm tubes on 50mm = 1:1 100mm on 50mm = 2:1

As for, with spider mites at that magnification I'd imagine working distance and dof would be insanely thin. In comments a dime took 14 stacked shots keeping a mite still sounds fun.

I certainly look forward to the shots. I suspect trying to hack will be harder than a dedicated lens, but I suspect iq difference maybe negligible/minor(extra glass). Just looking at length to get a 60mm to 6x looks unwieldy.

[DanK]

Unless my maths/reading is wrong, wouldn't you be getting to 300mm of tubes just to get 3x magnification with a 100mm macro?

I don't think so, because the normal-lens formula doesn't work with macro lenses near minimum working distances. I think the reason is that the actual focal length at that distance is less than the nominal. Brian Valentine (Lord V on numerous forums), a superb macro photographer, did some tests with a 100 mm lens and tubes. If I recall, 68mm approximately doubled magnification. I'd have to google to find it. However, you're right that if you want higher levels, you need to use something other than one set of tubes, such as bellows or an MP-E 65. That's why I suggested that there are two separate issues: the maximum magnification James can get with his tubes, and his not getting high-enough quality results with tubes. The former problem can be solved with an MP-E 65, but that lens won't solve any problems of technique.

I don't often shoot with more than 36mm of extension, but to give an approximate idea of scale, here is an old shot with a 60mm lens and 68mm of tubes. My fingernail gives some idea of scale. Plenty of magnification for many bug shots, but I suspect not for spider mites.

[FeatherMonkey]

I agree Dan he uses 60mm macro with less tubes but still a lot to get to 3x.

As for technique I walk away from that miles away. The difference with some extension to dof shocked me

[george013]

I don't think so, because the normal-lens formula doesn't work with macro lenses near minimum working distances. I think the reason is that the actual focal length at that distance is less than the nominal. Brian Valentine (Lord V on numerous forums), a superb macro photographer, did some tests with a 100 mm lens and tubes. If I recall, 68mm approximately doubled magnification. I'd have to google to find it. However, you're right that if you want higher levels, you need to use something other than one set of tubes, such as bellows or an MP-E 65. That's why I suggested that there are two separate issues: the maximum magnification James can get with his tubes, and his not getting high-enough quality results with tubes. The former problem can be solved with an MP-E 65, but that lens won't solve any problems of technique.

I don't often shoot with more than 36mm of extension, but to give an approximate idea of scale, here is an old shot with a 60mm lens and 68mm of tubes. My fingernail gives some idea of scale. Plenty of magnification for many bug shots, but I suspect not for spider mites.

If the spec say min.focus at 0.3m and a magnification of 1:1 than that means a focal length of 75mm.
See also http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...anon_100_28_5d

George


edit.

I think that if you use extension tubes you also must be aware at which distance the lens itself is set. If at infinity, the focal length is 100, if closest the focal length is 75.
I don't know for sure, but I thought it was a good habit to focus on infinity, so 100mm in that case.

George

[James G]

This is getting interesting. At present I've forming the opinion that although I need to develop my skills with extension tubes (something I was already planning over the autumn and winter, using static targets). If I want to get significant additional magnification (greater than x2), then the MP-E 65mm lens may be the better option. Realistically, I doubt I could hope to get away with x5, but the ability to change the magnification factor in situ makes the lens option attractive.

I have the ability (I think) to provide sufficient additional light since I have a Canon ringlite, and the Canon Twin Flash.

Getting focus will be interesting using either system

Being honest the Spider Mites are my 'blue sky' project , but I am seriously interested in improving my ability to get micro insects in the 0-5mm range, which is I think, much more achievable short term.
The attached captures for the spider mites are what is currently driving me.

This is the total field captured with my 7DMk2 + 100mm L series lens.




The following are the 'best' I've been able to achieve cropping and processing.






The trouble is that these captures feel just good enough that I'm sure I must be able to improve on them.

One thing for certain, I doubt I'll be able to match these

http://www.rms.org.uk/events/AwardsC...015Micrographs

[Cantab]

This discussion is spurring me on to have a go at whatever I can do with my 100mm L lens and largely unused extension tubes.

James, I would think one important challenge in pursuing your goal is having good enough eyesight to even find the tiny critters!

[James G]

Not just eyesight (fading in my case) but reaction time... they really do move like the clappers. Tracking is a nightmare

[DanK]

I don't know for sure, but I thought it was a good habit to focus on infinity, so 100mm in that case.

No, that would completely negate the purpose of the tube, which is to allow you to focus closer and hence to get higher magnification. If I focus my 100mm at infinity and add a 36mm tube, minimum working distance becomes about one foot (30 cm), and the resulting magnification is much less than I would be able to get without the tube. When I use a tube, I am generally quite near minimum focusing distance, because if I am not, I don't get any advantage from the tube. The exception is if I need less magnification and don't have time to remove the tube.

Re reaction time: yes, I agree. My reaction time is not great, and when you add to that the fact that I am a klutz, this can be hard work. The way I most often do it is to set the lens where I want it--usually at minimum focusing distance--and then move the camera forward or backward to achieve focus. I use a monopod to give me enough stability to do this. The limiting factor is how fast the flash will refresh. Ideally, you would want a burst as you move through the range of focus, but even with high-capacity batteries, I generally get dead shots if I fire too quickly in succession.

The bottom line is a lot of failures. I sometimes cull the worst in camera, but the first thing I do after uploading the photos is to trash most of them. I've learned to be happy if I get a couple of good images from one shoot.

This is why I recommend starting with a short tube. The greater the magnification, the harder this becomes. It's just easier to practice first with a short extension and then, when you are comfortable with that, to move up. I am now quite comfortable with 36 mm and the resulting magnification, but I am sure that if I jumped to 3:1 I would be tearing my hair out.

I generally don't look for mites, but I caught this creature by accident a couple of years ago. I don't know whether it is a mite or a tick nymph. This was also the 100mm, I think with 36mm extension.

[chauncey]

I have the Canon MP-E 65mm F2.8 1-5 Macro...tried using it one day, was too much of a PITA...
boxed it back up and it still sets on the shelf along with an automatic focusing rail.

[george013]

No, that would completely negate the purpose of the tube, which is to allow you to focus closer and hence to get higher magnification. If I focus my 100mm at infinity and add a 36mm tube, minimum working distance becomes about one foot (30 cm), and the resulting magnification is much less than I would be able to get without the tube. When I use a tube, I am generally quite near minimum focusing distance, because if I am not, I don't get any advantage from the tube. The exception is if I need less magnification and don't have time to remove the tube.

You're right. I think I thought of the use of a normal lens with a bellow.

But it stands that if you want to do some calculations, you have to be aware that the 100mm lens on infinity is a 75mm lens on short distance.

George

[IzzieK]

I have the Canon MP-E 65mm F2.8 1-5 Macro...tried using it one day, was too much of a PITA...
boxed it back up and it still sets on the shelf along with an automatic focusing rail.

You are not helping William....

[James G]

You are not helping William....

Oh, I don't know Izzie......

William, at the risk of resurrecting traumatic times could you expand on PITA?
I've read the review articles and I've formed a pretty clear understanding of the 'difficulties' using the lens, but I am looking for feedback from anyone who actually has hands on experience using it.

You put it on the shelf and did not dispose of it, that's the kind of thing I do when I have a project which 'mentally' I am trying to convince myself I will return to.

[James G]

You're right. I think I thought of the use of a normal lens with a bellow.

I have not really given any consideration to bellows, I am contemplating a static rig to practice with over the winter, (photographing Daphnia), but using extension tubes or the MP-E, because I want a rig to capture images in the field.

I'm wondering if I'm missing a trick by discounting bellows, I'd assumed they would be too clumsy to manage. They are certainly cheaper than the lens.

[FeatherMonkey]

James you seemed to of done a full circle reading the above you seem right back where Dan put you.

Field wise I suspect using similar to Dan will be manageable. It won't give you the magnification but at least you'll have some dof to work with. I put all my tubes on a tripod indoors and that was bad enough sod doing that in the field.

I'd continue your journey with tubes then see where it takes you.

If you nail the tubes and still want more then lens or bellows. I doubt technique will differ that much beyond manageability. Dof and focus I'd expect to be hard with any form of magnification.

I confess I'm still early in macro and have plenty more to learn. At the mo I'm finding light to close down aperture is my problem that needs investment not making it harder with magnification.

[chauncey]

could you expand on PITA?

It was purchased during a "gear accumulation phase" when I purchased stuff based on "want"
as opposed to "need"...I played with it back then when I had no experience doing macro stuff.
I had read how it works but could not achieve any kind of focus. Recently, tried to work with it
again with the similar results.

I get the impression that using a focusing rail is mandatory and the subject must be immobile.
Visualize the necessity for putting your railed camera and lens set-up/subject on a board then
achieving focus using the rail. Add to that is the focusing mechanism does not allow tethered
shooting using Canon's Utility Software. That's a PITA in my mind.

My weapon of choice is the 180mm macro, with/without a group of extension tubes simply
because it is easier to work with. I use it for macro as well as some landscape work.

Saving it for later...at my age, I don't buy green bananas. There isn't a save for later.

[James G]

William, that is exactly what I was after, thanks... Ok MP-E would be an expensive exercise in futility, so it will be extension tubes for the present.

I did pick up on a point in Stef's post about using a doubler in the setup. That will probably be an option because I'm looking for one on E-Bay for another project... I want to see just how much detail I can get with a Sigma 500mm and a doubler when shooting the Moon! (like William I'm at an age where waiting or putting things off is fairly illogical )

Dan, William, George, all.... thanks I have a clear way forward ... must get started growing the Daphnia