Considering a test of the MP-E 65mm 2.8 1-5x Macro

[Cory]

So, I'm considering renting the lens in order to try it out. I've seen reviews from people stating they've been able to get decent results hand-holding the lens up to around x3. I've seen reviews from people who can't seem to get any decent shots at all without a tripod and, potentially, a macro rail.


I typically have a very steady camera arm/hand/whatever and can often get usable shots many others can't. This leads me to believe I'll be able to get some 'on the fly' use of this lens.


So... what are peoples experiences here if any? I'm specifically looking for people comments about using it hand-held. Too much blur? Can't get past x1, x2 or x3?


Part of the whole point of me testing this out is to see if the lens is at least partially usable 'in the field'. That is, without a tripod/rail setup. I will have a monopod soon. If it turns out to not be usable in that manner I'll stick with either the 100mm or 180mm macros.

[ThomasJ]

This is not meant insulting by any means, but: Have you ever used a macro lens that goes up to 1:1? I checked your profile and I saw none listed.


What do you want to photograph with the MP-E anyways?


I recently started using the new 100mm IS Macro lens. While handholding is generally possible, at 1:1 a steady hand is definitely required in order to keep the focus plane where you want it to be.


At higher magnifications - 2:1 or 3:1 you either need really really fast shutter speeds or a tripod. I recommend a tripod..


I doubt you could get many satisfactory shots handheld at magnifications higher than 2:1, but that of course depends on the situation and what you are shooting...

[Cory]

This is not meant insulting by any means, but: Have you ever used a macro lens that goes up to 1:1? I checked your profile and I saw none listed.

Oh no offense taken. Girlfriend has a Canon also and a few lenses, so I have used her 100mm 2.8 Macro and have had absolutely no problems hand-holding it. It rivals my 24-105 4.0 L in sharpness. Even standing knee deep in incoming surf I generally didn't need to take more than 3 shots to get a pretty crisp shot.

What do you want to photograph with the MP-E anyways?

Bugs, close ups of 'normal' objects, flowers. Sometimes simple 'texture' shots can be very cool and this lens could open a whole new world of textures.


Well, I like the results I get from the 100mm macro but I would like to give the 65mm one a shot since it starts where the 100mm is 'set'. If the picture quality is as good, and I am buying almost specifically for macro purposes, why not get it instead of the 100mm even if the only hand-holdability is at 1:1? I'd be using it as I would the 100mm and still have 'room to spare' so to speak with the x2-x5 range if I want to. I may very well end up getting the new 100mm 2.8 L Macro, but since
I don't really NEED the non-macro usability the MP-E 65mm might be a
good purchase.

I doubt you could get many satisfactory shots handheld at magnifications higher than 2:1, but that of course depends on the situation and what you are shooting...

This is pretty much exactly what my 'test' is intended to find out. I was just curious what other peoples experience with it was. In doing bug shots I may be better off with the 100mm due to the fact that I'd like to try to get shots of live bugs... and they tend not to follow instructions very well. Still, if the starting point of the 65mm is the same as the 100mm... at that point I suspect it'll become an image quality choice.

[wickerprints]

From what I understand, the differences between the 100/2.8 macro
lenses and the MP-E go quite a bit beyond magnification range. The
first and most obvious difference is that the MP-E is manual focus
only. However, I think you still get focus confirmation. The second difference is that the lens does not focus to
infinity. In other words, it is a dedicated close-up lens. A third,
more subtle difference, is that the MP-E does extend when
focusing/selecting magnification, which means one must be more careful
not to disturb your subject. Fourth, I am told that the extremely short working distance and the much smaller effective aperture means using a macro flash setup is pretty much mandatory at high magnification, especially so if handheld.


Now I'm not trying to discourage you
from *testing* the MP-E, in fact, I'm all for it. But just from what I
can tell from this lens, it is not a replacement for any EF macro
lens. It is just *so* different. Should you rent it, what I think you will soon discover is that it is almost nothing like shooting with the 100/2.8 macro. Try it out--I myself plan to someday, but as it is, I'm pretty happy with 1:1. I've measured an effective print magnification ratio of approximately 35:1. If one could use the 7D + MP-E 65mm, I think it would be possible to obtain effective print magnification ratios as high as 280:1.

[Cory]

Very true... with a high pixel count and a 100mm 2.8 L, so long as the sharpness is as good as the non L version, shots could be blown up and still produce some darn good pictures. And I'm under no illusions that the MP-E will be as easy to use.

[wickerprints]

I'm still very new to macro, but even in my limited experience I have discovered that at 1:1 handheld, it is challenging to control the placement of the DOF. The slightest movement back or forth changes where the focus will be, faster than the camera can AF (and AF speed is irrelevant with the MP-E anyway, since it's MF only). This is not too much of a problem at apertures smaller than, say, f/8, but when you get up to 3:1 or higher, the DOF is paper thin even when you are stopped down. I can't even imagine trying to shoot 5:1 handheld and expect to get the focus placement accurate.


The reason why I point this out is because accurate focus in such a situation does not benefit from additional light--you can have all the light you want but if you cannot steady the camera to within fractions of a millimeter, you cannot expect to get accurate focus at 5:1.


Now, that doesn't mean you *must* use a tripod and/or macro rail...some people do quite well by bracing or resting the camera on a surface. There are ways of making sure the camera doesn't move that don't require using a tripod. And not all tripods are big, clunky, heavy deals. Some are quite small and portable.

[Maleko]

The reason why I point this out is because accurate focus in such a situation does not benefit from additional light--you can have all the light you want but if you cannot steady the camera to within fractions of a millimeter, you cannot expect to get accurate focus at 5:1.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

So true!

[Maleko]

The reason why I point this out is because accurate focus in such a situation does not benefit from additional light--you can have all the light you want but if you cannot steady the camera to within fractions of a millimeter, you cannot expect to get accurate focus at 5:1.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

So true!