Quote Originally Posted by 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.

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.