Canon macro lenses?

Josh66

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
14,593
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Cedar Hill, Texas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Keep in mind that the MP-E 65 can only do 1:1 - 5:1. Unless the flowers were really small, you wouldn't even be able to get a shot of the whole thing. Think of a grain of rice or two filling the entire frame - that's what 5:1 will look like. 1:1, something like a postage stamp would fill the entire frame.

With the 100mm macro at 1:1, the subject is only 3-4 inches from the front of the lens. With a shorter macro (1:1) lens, that would be somewhere around 1-2 inches.

is that the canon 100mm macro lens mentioned above? one site says "0.31m / 1 ft. (film plane to subject)"

does that mean its measured form teh film plane?

Yes, I was talking about the Canon 100mm Macro.

That sounds about right (in bold). The lens is roughly 6 inches long, and the mount to the film plane is roughly 2 or 1.5 inches (those are just guesses, too lazy to measure everything...) - that adds up to about 8 inches, so there's about 4 inches left in front of the lens.
 
OP
G

Ganoderma

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Some more great info, thanks!!!

the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro seems to be just a little less expensive than the canon 100mm. which one would have the better quality picture, distance wasn't an issue? the 100mm seems to be ok at 31cm, which i can work with :)

Reading th thread I get the impression that your not using a tripod for these shots (just the impression). Ir your going to start going beyond 1:1 magnifcation in macro, whilst its possible handheld you will find it a lot easier (and more accurate) using a tripod based setup - its more bulk and setup I appreciate, but it would give you more control and (in the long term) be quicker to use.

Ya, i probably didn't mention it, but i use tripod all the time and wireless remote....and in another thread the lovely folks here taught me about mirror lock up and now i am wondering how i ever lived without it! I am also going to be building a mount for subjects and camera to allow for my specific needs

some good points on the Mpe65mm. i really would love this lens, and could use it a lot, but for now i think you guys are right and the ability to move out a bit is nice.

Overread, i looked at your site, and am thuroughly impressed! to be honest i am not sure i totally understand the setup, so i will read some articles about what that is, cause the results seem quite good. is that kind of setup doable with the canon lens as well?


Here are some examples of what i have taken in teh past with a 18-55mm kit lens. before i was using tripod setup up very carefully (and SLOWLY!!!!!!) to the micropscope, but i have some adapters and other toys being shiped as we speak, so that will be 100x easier.

as you can see in the pics, i need more sharpness and clarity, and also a a closer work distance...i like having a macro, not a cropped image :)

Ariocarpus-retusus-59.jpg


Ariocarpus-retusus-71.jpg


Ariocarpus-retusus-53.jpg


LF-3.jpg


flower8.jpg


Stenocereus-fricii.jpg


astrostig.jpg


astrostem.jpg


root2.jpg


opuntia14.jpg



thanks again for all the help...learning 10 fold by the day here lol.
 

Josh66

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
14,593
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Cedar Hill, Texas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
OK, wow... If you're looking for something that can do that ^^^, maybe you really do need the MP-E 65...

No 1:1 macro will get you that close.

Remember though - all 1:1 macros will give you the same magnification (1:1), longer lenses just give you more working room.

(A few of those might be doable with a "regular" 1:1 macro, hard to judge the size on a couple of them.)
 

Josh66

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
14,593
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Cedar Hill, Texas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
On a second note...

Isn't there some kind of adapter you can use to take pictures through your microscope (without having to hold the camera up to the eyepiece)?

I would look into something like that... If you really need to get that close, I don't think a macro lens will live up to you expectations.
 
OP
G

Ganoderma

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
i am getting the microscope adapter, its been shipped already. i got the microscope end of things i need, or ordered. what i am trying to show is this.

with my scope on lowest magnification (40x) and no camera magnification i get this close...or can go closer.



with my current lenses i can expect this kind of distance
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t153/plantsss/flower8.jpg
flower8.jpg


what i want is something in between these 2 or even closer to the flower size but better quality.

something around this kind of magnification (this seed is 1.5 mm long)
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t153/plantsss/Stenocereus-fricii.jpg
Stenocereus-fricii.jpg


it doesn't really need to be a 3888 pixel image at this....but i at least need a 900+ pixel crop without resizing (that make sense?) basically something to show in decent detail online and also decent size papers filling 3/4+ of a standard letter sized paper.


think this is obtainable form a canon 100mm?
 

Josh66

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
14,593
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Cedar Hill, Texas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
it doesn't really need to be a 3888 pixel image at this....but i at least need a 900+ pixel crop without resizing (that make sense?) basically something to show in decent detail online and also decent size papers filling 3/4+ of a standard letter sized paper.


think this is obtainable form a canon 100mm?

I get what you're saying. OK, an APS-C sensor is 25.1x16.7mm. At 1:1 (the closest most macro lenses are going to get you) that seed would be 1.5mm long. 5.9% of the length of the sensor.

Not sure what camera you have... I have a 350D. An uncropped picture is 3456x2304 pixels. 5.9% of 3456 is 203.9. So, that seed would be 204 pixels long...

If you had a camera with more megapixels than mine, it would be (a little) bigger.


EDIT

No, I do not think that the Canon 100mm macro (or any other 1:1 macro lens) is going to get as close as you want.
For what you want to do, it sounds like you might actually need the MP-E 65mm. That is the only lens I know of that will do what you want.
1:1 is not quite as close as you want to get, and I know of no other lenses between 1:1 and 10:1 (just a guess, looks like that's about what you're doing with the microscope).

Other than the MP-E 65, you have a few options - but none of them will give you the same picture quality.

You could consider a macro coupler. This is a ring that allows you to mount two lenses face to face. Magnification of 1:1 - 5:1 is doable, assuming you have the right lenses. A 200mm and a 50mm would give you 4:1.

Using one of these is really a pain in the ass though...


I say go for the MP-E 65...
 
Last edited:

usayit

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Messages
9,521
Reaction score
347
Location
North New Jersey, United States of America
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I dont' know the details of the shots above but something tells me that you can improve those shots with more light. You need more to stop down the lens even further. One of the issues with shooting macro is the extreme shallow depth of field and to avoid shooting wide open. My budget macro setup performs best at f/11 and f/13 which means more light and/or longer exposures. Make sure the support is very stable and mirror is locked up.

Just something to try before spending the cash.

You also mentioned very carefully and slowly setting up the tripod.... Since you are doing a lot of macro, you should consider getting a focusing rail. Faster to setup and more accurate to focus.
 

JustAnEngineer

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
609
Reaction score
1
Location
Heart of Dixie
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
The characteristic that really makes these lenses capable of 'macro' photography is the minimum focus distance. The closer you can get to the subject, and still be able to focus on it, the bigger it will be in the photo. A longer focal length gives you more working room. You could get a 50mm macro lens, but you would have to be so close to your subject to get 1:1 magnification, that you would likely be blocking off most of the ambient light.

A cheap alternative is to just use extension tubes. They go behind the lens and reduce the minimum focus distance, allowing you to get closer. They can be used with your existing lenses.
Adding a 25mm extension tube between the 100mm macro lens and the camera body brings subjects close enough to increase the magnification from 1:1 to 1.39:1.
 

usayit

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Messages
9,521
Reaction score
347
Location
North New Jersey, United States of America
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I dont' know the details of the shots above but something tells me that you can improve those shots with more light. You need more to stop down the lens even further.

Ganoderma,

I am not sure if I explained myself well in my post, so I am going to demonstrate.

This is done with a M42 bellows (Asahi Optical), 135mm lens (Sears Auto $20), and a ring flash macro ($40). The camera is a Samsung GX-1L (Pentax iST rebrand) DSLR.. fairly outdated.. 6mp (purchased at pawn shop for around $200). Nothing fancy nor expensive. Really, the camera itself is not important. The lens is fairly low quality and old..

The first attached photo was done with less than optimal lighting, shot with the lens wide open. I brightened it up a bit post in photoshop. Notice the IQ, lack of sharpness, and shallow DOF is similar aspects to your samples.

The second attached photo was done with the ring light with the lens at f/11 which is properly exposed.

Notice the difference in the image quality and detail captured? I'm not saying to go out and duplicate my "budget" setup but to examine the process used to create the photos.

Again.. something to try before blowing more cash on expensive equipment... you just might stay well into your budget.
 

Attachments

  • $two.jpg
    $two.jpg
    44 KB · Views: 98
  • $one.jpg
    $one.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 101
OP
G

Ganoderma

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
I get what you're saying. OK, an APS-C sensor is 25.1x16.7mm. At 1:1 (the closest most macro lenses are going to get you) that seed would be 1.5mm long. 5.9% of the length of the sensor.

Not sure what camera you have... I have a 350D. An uncropped picture is 3456x2304 pixels. 5.9% of 3456 is 203.9. So, that seed would be 204 pixels long...
thats a nice little formula to save and figure out for future things, thanks!

my cam takes pics at 3888x2592...so 229.4 i see....i would like bigger but.

i was just getting some shots of a morning glory found locally to send to the university and thought these came up fairly decent. this was with the 18-55mm kit lens. these are the kind of shots i will be needing, as in this close, and a little closer to highlight the pollen and such.

the anthers on this flower (the spear head looking thing with pollen on it) are 1.6-2.1 mm long and around 1mm wide. this image is 3 images (3 different anthers) but only cropped, no resizing. EDIT, photobucket resized it down to 800 :( it was 1100 wide.
Anthers.jpg



here is a picture of how i laid this one out for the photo. this one is cropped and resized.
flow-AN-DV-002.jpg



what i am hoping to get is crisper images and get closer in with more magnification.

I say go for the MP-E 65...
:thumbup: I am still working on it. I need to deal with the wife factor with a lens that expensive :lol: the 100mm i was able to convince her with....i'll keep working away, who knows, she may just break.

Usayit. i used to shoot like f/22-29, until the folsk here told me that defraction (is that the right word?) was probably worse than teh DOF i thought i was getting. so now i am often f/9-f/16....but with these and the bad lighting i am often needing iso200 and slow shutterspeeds, which for flowers outside can be a pain as its a windy country here :grumpy:

Adding a 25mm extension tube between the 100mm macro lens and the camera body brings subjects close enough to increase the magnification from 1:1 to 1.39:1.
this has me a little excited. i know the drawbacks with soem extension tubes (cheaper ones) and no af/aperture, but that can be toyed with. or just get eth proper ones.

what about those "macro" filters. the ones that have 1x 3x, 10x etc magnification. are they any good or do they just blow up images at the cost of quality?

Thanks again guys and gals. i love your help, my wife on the other hand thinks your all making me spend $ HAHA :lmao:

(Thanks!)
 

Overread

has a hat around here somewhere
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
25,368
Reaction score
4,940
Location
UK - England
Website
www.deviantart.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
so now i am often f/9-f/16....but with these and the bad lighting i am often needing iso200 and slow shutterspeeds, which for flowers outside can be a pain as its a windy country here :grumpy:

Flash and windbreaks are your friends :)
A small windbreak (I know some people who use a separate tripod with fabric wrapped round the legs as a makshift windbreak/tent to put over subjects) will help against lighter wind and flash units can help to counter the movement still present.
Of course then you have to pick your flash setup - if your still aiming (short or longterm) for the MPE65mm then the canon twinlights are what you really want to aim for (yah they arn't cheap either sadly); whilst if your not then a basic speedlite would be my first recomendation for a simple workable setup - a 430EX along with a lumiquest softbox would be a good starting point

this has me a little excited. i know the drawbacks with soem extension tubes (cheaper ones) and no af/aperture, but that can be toyed with. or just get eth proper ones.

Best thing is to go for a set of Kenko AF extension tubes. They are the cheapest good quality make and come with the contacts so that you can control the aperture and af of a lens; though af is not much use aperture control very much is since whilst you can trick the lens in to stopping down you also have the blades shut whilst you focus, which means you will have avery very dark viewfinder image to focus with (you will need external lighting to see the subject)

what about those "macro" filters. the ones that have 1x 3x, 10x etc magnification. are they any good or do they just blow up images at the cost of quality?

Most are cheap and rubbishy glass, though they operate in a similar manner to the extension tubes - that of making the lens focus closer to the subject to fit more of it into the frame.
There are some good quality makes and I would recomend Raynox if you consider this line (one bonus to things like this and tubes is that if you still go and get a macro lens at a later point you can add these on to get increased magnifcation from the macro lens). The DCR250 is an affordable addon, though they do make others which can be far more powerfull (though of course cost more). I have seen these become quite popular with macro shooters, especailly those shooting Nikon and wanting more highmagnifaction photography.

Note that teleconverters will do as you think (magnify the image captured) and won't affect your minimum focusing distance (which is why they are popuplar with macro shooters after a bit more magnifcation). A 1.4 teleconverter will give a little boost to magnification (1.4 times) with little noticable effect on image quality - a 2*TC will give you double the magnifcation (2:1) though at a greater cost to image quality (though still very usable results). The MPE65mm beats these combos for image quality, but a teleconverter and regular macro lens (for plants) will be a lot cheaper to setup.
As an example I got these with a regular 1:1 macro lens and a 1.4 Teleconverter (with the lighting setup I noted above of a speedlite and a lumiquest softbox)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24534478@N04/3759359785/in/set-72157621847583770/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24534478@N04/3760157856/in/set-72157621847583770/

Thanks again guys and gals. i love your help, my wife on the other hand thinks your all making me spend $ HAHA :lmao:
(Thanks!)

investing - your investing not spending ;)
 

Most reactions

Top