A good macro lens?

[cgipson1]

Just curious. Why all of the suggestions for the Canon 100mm L Macro, when it is the same price as the MP-E 65. Isnt that the premier macro lens?

I wouldn't call it the Premier Macro lens, as it is a very specialized lens. It is not a lens for a beginner. It is capable of extremely high levels of magnification, and the resultant minimal DOF (Far less DOF than a normal 1:1 macro lens.. which already has extremely minimal DOF). It requires a lot of skill in camera handling, tripod handling and lighting.

I actually borrowed a canon body and the MP-E 65 from a friend.. and used it for a day. I didn't get a single image I would call a keeper (some weren't bad... but not up to my standards, and one could say I have at least a little experience in shooting macro)

 

[cgipson1]

Just curious. Why all of the suggestions for the Canon 100mm L Macro, when it is the same price as the MP-E 65. Isnt that the premier macro lens?

I believe it depends on the type of macro shots a person want to do and if he/she want to use the macro lens for other stuff as well. I think the regular macro lens is more practical.

+1, definitely!

 

[TheBiles]

Just curious. Why all of the suggestions for the Canon 100mm L Macro, when it is the same price as the MP-E 65. Isnt that the premier macro lens?

I believe it depends on the type of macro shots a person want to do and if he/she want to use the macro lens for other stuff as well. I think the regular macro lens is more practical.

Definitely. The MP-E is a macro ONLY lens. You can't use it for portraits or any normal shots like you can with the 100L. It's is pretty much designed to shoot static subjects with the aid of a tripod, while the 100L is very versatile.

 

[jake337]

Just curious. Why all of the suggestions for the Canon 100mm L Macro, when it is the same price as the MP-E 65. Isnt that the premier macro lens?

I wouldn't call it the Premier Macro lens, as it is a very specialized lens. It is not a lens for a beginner. It is capable of extremely high levels of magnification, and the resultant minimal DOF (Far less DOF than a normal 1:1 macro lens.. which already has extremely minimal DOF). It requires a lot of skill in camera handling, tripod handling and lighting.

I actually borrowed a canon body and the MP-E 65 from a friend.. and used it for a day. I didn't get a single image I would call a keeper (some weren't bad... but not up to my standards, and one could say I have at least a little experience in shooting macro)

Yup, the MP-E 65 is a beast when not used properly.

 

[unpopular]

OTOH if he does have $1000 to spend on macro gear specifically, I would recommend the MP-E, provided that the OP is dedicated to macro and is willing to learn.

$1000 may be a lot of money for you and I, but if you've got the cash and the patience why not go for the best there is? Yeah, it's going to be a pain at first, but I think in the long run it's the way to go.

However, if the OP just wants to dabble, I'd suggest some other option. Macro isn't everyone's cup of tea and I just can't imagine dropping $1000 unless you're pretty sure that this is something you're interested in. Even just a reversal ring or extension tubes might be a good option if that is the case.