MACRO - Do I need the 100mm f/2.8L or not?

[weclickyoupick.com]

Hello Canoneers,


I'm thinking about adding to my line up of lenses and was considering delving into macro photography. I have a few L lenses now and have taken some "close-up" shots in the garden etc.. but wasn't sure what I'm missing by not having a Macro lense per se.


Will I see a big difference in these type of shots if I use a dedicated macro lense? if so...how big a difference? Do I shoot for the 100mm f/2.8L IS or the non IS 100mm f/2.8 which isn't a beloved "L" lense?


Any suggestions after seeing what I have now? Can I get decent enough macro shots with my lenses below?....or would I be "wowed" by this "L Macro"? IfI can get "good enough" macro for one of these lenses below....then I was just going to keep saving for my 300mm 2.8L. Shall I keep saving?


Cheers, Jeff


I have the following now:


16-35mm 2.8L II


24-70mm 2.8L


70-200mm 2.8L IS ver. 1 (took some neat closeups with this one)


135mm 2L


85mm 1.2L


50mm 1.4


70-300mm f4-5.6

[Sheiky]

Hey Jeff,


for close-ups of flowers Iwould say you have a pretty fine lens-collection. In my opinion you should buy the macro only to shoot mainly at smaller objects than flowers. Like beetles and bugs etc etc. I don't know which lens in your collection gives you the maximum magnification, but I'm sure it will do for flowerclose-ups and larger bugs like butterflies etc.


It is however a magnificent lens (I own the 100mm non IS) and you might discover a whole new world to take pictures off. But for just some close-ups, I would keep going as you are and save up for the 300mm f2.8 which has probably much more use for you?


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

For an inexpensive option, with your 70-200mm you can add a[url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx]500D Close-up Lens[/url]lens and get to ~0.5x magnification - that's more than adequate for 'garden' close-ups, at the expense of some corner softness (and restricted flexibility in working distance).


The main difference you'll notice with a dedicated macro lens is the ability focus all the way from infinity right up to 1:1 magnification - so, if you want to get [i]really[/i] close, a macro lens is the way to go.


Optically, there's essentially no difference between the non-IS and L versions of the Canon 100mm Macro. I have theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS - the IS is moderately useful for macro shooting (especially in the 1:2-1:3 range) in good light; closer or dimmer, and the small aperture required for sufficient DOF means a tripod is required and IS isn't needed. If you'd be using it for general shooting/portraits, IS would be helpful - but you have other lenses that are more suited to those uses. On the other hand, if you want to go shoot macro in the rain (and you have a sealed body), you'd want the weather-sealed L macro.

[scalesusa]

I have a similar array of lenses. I also had a 100mm F2.8 lens. I found it hard to handhold at close distances (Nor really Macro's) and seldom got more than 1 of 5 sharp images, so I sold it. For the most part, I got the best results with my 24-105mm IS lens, but the 135mmL was also good. I have but hate to use extension tubes, since too much setup is required, including a tripod in most cases. A 1.4 or 2X extender works better, but is still a bit klutzy.


I was pretty pessisimistic about the new 100mmL, even after reading about how many people liked it. I had recently sold my 40D and bought a used 1D MK III, so that left me with a 17-55mm lens that I reluctantly sold. I used the proceeds to buy a 100mmL, and suddenly found that closeups of flowers were easy to take handheld, even at 1/10 sec shutter speeds. This astounded me, after my previous experience.


So now, the 100mm L will be with me all the time, and is getting use as a all around telephoto on my 5d MK II as well as the 1D MK III.

[btaylor]

Another inexpensive option would be extension tubes. I have the Kenko tubes (12mm, 20mm and 36mm if I remember correctly). AF still works but I find it hard to use for macro anyway and the IQ is good. I use them on my 50mm f/1.8 II and the 70-200mm f/4L IS with good results.

[btaylor]

I have but hate to use extension tubes, since too much setup is required, including a tripod in most cases.

Missed this bit - I don't have any issues with setupusing extension tubes. I normally just put the 20mm tube on and go for gold!

[Keith B]

The 24-70 should get you really nice flower shots. It's minimum focus of 15" and max magnification of .29 are pretty good for a non-macro lens.

[Sheiky]

The 24-70 should get you really nice flower shots. It's minimum focus of 15" and max magnification of .29 are pretty good for a non-macro lens.

So conclusion in my eyes: if you've got a better reason to buy a 300mm f2.8 and need to save money for it, go with that and deal with the flowers and close-ups with the amazing lens-collection that you already have!


Jan

[scalesusa]

Good for you. I'm not talented enough to take a extreme closeup with extension tubes handheld at 1/10th second and get a sharp image. Even at fast shutter speeds, I move too much and get motion blur or out offocus shots, so I have to use a tripod and focusing rail. Then select the correct tube length to get the composition I want. This can, of course be done. My point is that I was suprised at how easy the new 100L is to use for what used to be a setup that was slow and clunky.


The price is steep, of course.

[btaylor]

The price is steep, of course.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

You're right it is. I personally couldn't justify purchasing a dedicated macro lens as it's not really my main interest with photography. Extension tubes are the cheap alternative and I do doubt they give the same results as a macro lens (otherwise everybody would use them!).


I agree also that it can be difficult to keep objects in focus with such a narrow depth of field. I often have to brace myself against a tree or some other solid structure, other times I use a tripod and it certainly can be a pain without a focusing rail.