Another Macro lens advise question

[Kaffine]

Hey all

I'll hopefully get all the want questions out of the way quick and start to contribute soon, but for now its want...want...want...;)


So I'm getting back behind the lens after a long hiatus and due to my current interests macro is going to sit right in. I've just invested in my new-s/h 7D body, I have my sport lens's sorted, now for the macro stuff. I've read many review articles, sat through as many videos and spoke to a few (Perth) camera shop sales guys of which almost every one has a different recommendation this may be due to the group of viable lens's are so close in quality they are hard to distinguish between thus I hear conflicting advise.

Question: So that being said I'm looking for a macro lens (Duh) for insect's primarily with the obvious flower and raindrop thrown in, I'd like to keep the $$ under or around $1K as I'd like to get it right once and with an option of it suiting a full frame camera in the future if at all possible. Quality is key but if I can get a top quality lens and spend less it just means more money for other gear

I'll just add some of the recommended lens's Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG, Tamron SP 90mm, Canon EF 100 f/2.8, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L and Sigma 150mm f/2.8...

I understand that everyone has a favorite and we are all different people but if I can get it narrowed down to a few I can make a decision from there.. with some tips along the way would be much appreciated

Thanks in advance
Craig :th3:

[ameerat42]

Craig. IMO, you wouldn't be making a big mistake at all with any of these lenses.
This point-of-view is based on much reading of reviews on the net, etc, and postings here
and elsewhere.

The basic requirement is that you get 1:1 reproduction AND very good image quality. Now a few
people have more specialised macro lenses here on AP - giving 2:1 reproduction. Mary Anne is one
I can recall, and one of them can advise about that one too.

[Kaffine]

Thanks ameerat42

Generally that's what I wanted to hear, I didn't mind spending the extra $$ if the quality gain was going to justify it, but if I can get 99% of the quality for 50% of the price well I take that too. So my idea was to look at 100mm and above possibly up to the 150mm as I want to capture fly-ie buzzy things so that extra distance will help reduce the spookability level.


Thanks Again
Craig

P.S. I won't be buying for about a week so lots more time for research and reading

[jjphoto]

Craig, consider that the crop factor of the 7D will make the lens much longer and I would suggest that 100+mm lenses might be OK but that a 150mm might be too long.

[Kieran]

Getting the subject well lit is the biggest challenge I think. Perhaps looking for the lens-flash combination that suits you best for a price is worth considering.

[nardes]

I have the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro lens (non-L) and I use off camera flash (1/250 sec, F11, ISO100) which effectively “kills” the daylight as the illumination is supplied by the flash.

This means that I have no need for the IS of the 100mm F2.8L version. I understand that there is negligible difference in IQ between the non-L and L 100mm F2.8 so unless you need the IS, I suspect the non-L version should meet your needs.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/461-canon_100_28is_50d

Cheers

Dennis

[Kaffine]

Craig, consider that the crop factor of the 7D will make the lens much longer and I would suggest that 100+mm lenses might be OK but that a 150mm might be too long.

Thanks JJphoto, the 150mm was recommended by the Sales guy that had 2 left in stock at a bargain price but amazingly only for a couple more days, I'm a sales rep so I've seen that strategy many times before.;)


Getting the subject well lit is the biggest challenge I think. Perhaps looking for the lens-flash combination that suits you best for a price is worth considering.

Cheers Kieren I've got a ring flash and an off camera setup coming so hopefully I'll be able to learn that technique as well as the nuances of macro :th3:


I have the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro lens (non-L) and I use off camera flash (1/250 sec, F11, ISO100) which effectively “kills” the daylight as the illumination is supplied by the flash.

This means that I have no need for the IS of the 100mm F2.8L version. I understand that there is negligible difference in IQ between the non-L and L 100mm F2.8 so unless you need the IS, I suspect the non-L version should meet your needs.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/461-canon_100_28is_50d


Cheers

Dennis

Fantastic nardes, this one of the things I've heard that the focal quality is very similar but the L does have the best IS in the business. that's a fair few dollar saving :nod:

[Cage]

A couple of points to also consider.

A quality lens should last you many camera changes, so if you aspire to a Full Frame camera down the track it is probably advisable to avoid dedicated APS-C lens as they are not suitable for full frame cameras, vignetting being the main issue.

I went through this process a few years back, avoided the short lens, although the Tamron 90mm is reputed to be a very good portrait lens, and ultimately decided on the Sigma 150mm f2.8, albeit the non-stabilised version, which for that reason only, I now regret.

My decision was based on several factors, firstly the MFD (Minimum Focusing Distance) as I could get a bit further away from critters that spit, bit and jumped. I also acquired a set of macro tubes which allow me to reduce the MFD when required. Versatility was the other factor as I found that by adding a 1.4 T/C I had a very sharp short telephoto lens. I actually used that combo for some star shots last night.

Decisions, decisions. :confused013

[MissionMan]

I have the Tamron 90mm Macro (albeit for Nikon) and I have to say I am pretty happy with it and would highly recommend it.

It's not quite premium lens quality, but that's more the quality of the build rather than an issue with the optics which are first rate. Optically, it's a specular lens. That said, I have primarily pro nikon lenses (24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8) which are pretty bulky and heavy so maybe the Tamron feels a little light and plasticky compared to those which are heavy robust lenses. The only issue I have with the Tamron is my 1.4x converter doesn't work on it so if I wanted to extend it, I would have to buy the Tamron specific converter. It's not a major issue, but it would have been nice to extend the focal length on occasion as I am running with a full frame.

Here is a sample. Bare in mind that I am not a macro person so the DOF is too shallow in this but it's more of an indication of the sharpness

https://atholhill.smugmug.com/Macro/Butterflies/i-4mb36kL/0/2880x1916/DSC_2928-2880x1916.jpg

https://atholhill.smugmug.com/Macro/Macro/i-N5zBFkC/0/2880x2160/DSC_5399-2880x2160.jpg

[William W]

. . . macro is going to sit right in. I've just invested in my new-s/h 7D body,

Question: So that being said I'm looking for a macro lens (Duh) for insect's primarily with the obvious flower and raindrop thrown in, I'd like to keep the $$ under or around $1K as I'd like to get it right once and with an option of it suiting a full frame camera in the future if at all possible. Quality is key but if I can get a top quality lens and spend less it just means more money for other gear. . . .

Have a close look at the EF 50 F/2.5 Macro, plus Life Size Converter:

> the WD at 50mm will typically suit the 7D;

> one of the sharpest lenses in the Canon line-up;

> one of the (if not the) Flattest Lenses Canon has made rendering it excellent for copy & records work;

> not expensive;

> EF Mount;

> very flexible uses when combined with a set of Extension Tubes;

> makes a great companion/compliment for a specialist macro kit when combined with any of the EF100/2.8Marco Lenses and/or the EF 180/3.5L Macro, should you (or should you not) move to attaining a 135 Format Camera later.

WW

[ktoopi]

I have the canon 100mm 2.8 L and I love it....:)

[arthurking83]

..... So my idea was to look at 100mm and above possibly up to the 150mm as I want to capture fly-ie buzzy things so that extra distance will help reduce the spookability level.

.....

For this reason, I'd also recommend the 150mm or so focal length.
While it's not critical, it can help get more keepers I reckon.

I personally have the Nikon 105mm VR, not my most favourite lens. It's not bad(although it does have very heavy chromatic aberration issues).
But I tried the Sigma 150mm(non OS version) once and immediately it felt nicer to use, and the images(only brief use tho) looked nicer overall too.
I think the images looked pleasant mainly due to lack of any CA issues in what I captured that day with it.

I realise that the Nikon is not a lens on your radar here .. but the point is that the Sigma is such a good lens(by way of comparison).

I reckon I'll get one soon myself too .. the OS version of course.

So my recommendation is a +1 for the Sigma 150 OS.

[s1l3nt]

Personally I love the Tamron 90mm. Has never done me badly, for the extra close up shots I use kenko extension tubes. Which you may eventually get anyway. I think 150 may be alittle long based on the crop factor as someone mentioned above.

Though in all honesty, you wouldn't go wrong with any of the lenses you mentioned above. :)

Looking forward to seeing your macro shots in the near future!

[tandeejay]

I have the Sigma 105, and I love it. It is also suitable for a FF camera. Since I have it on an APS-C camera, I use the supplied APS-C hood extension which makes the hood stick out far enough that the minimum working distance is about 1.5 inches in front of the hood. Without the hood that would be closer to about 5.5 inches in front of the lens. Now that is the absolute closest you can focus. One thing to keep in mind is that "minimum focus distance" is the distance from the sensor, not the distance from the front of the lens. I somehow never understood this, until after I got the Sigma. ( I read it, but it never sunk in that that MFD was from the sensor not front of lens. Working Distance is from the front of the lens...)

I also use the Sigma for more than just Macro, and currently have the lens on the camera most of the time. I think I'd find the 150 a bit long for doing that.

[MEK]

04-05-2016, 6:20pm

B​it late for a reply , but for anyone else reading this .
Lower focal length lenses will be easier to learn to use ( Say 50mm or 60mm )
90 to 105 lenses are probably the hardest to use well ( good results )
Moving to something like a 150mm Sigma , this is a good lens that offers a lot of options ( much like the 50 )

There are a lot of options out there and if you are really new to macro , I would suggest some close focus filters .. This way you can find out if macro is something you wish to pursue for little $$ invested .
I don't own every single lens available , but with so many 28-200 lenses that offer close focus , I would suggest screwing on some close focus filters and seeing how you go .
Even the often cheap kit lens ( 18-55 ) is a brilliant place to begin with a +4 or +8 filter .

Things to bear in mind :

Cost obviously
Long term goals ( How long are you giving yourself to achieve the goal )
How macro ?
How interested are you ? ( is the lens going to end up on Ebay if you don't get the results you want ? )
Camera ? ( Pentax - Canon - Nikon )
Legacy Lenses ( how far back in the time machine do you want to go ) Canon = Forget about it , Nikon = AIS , Pentax = M42 ( I hate M42 lenses - they are good glass but no auto aperture ) For macro you want auto aperture .

????????

An awful lot of macro glass is locked away in cupboards and camera cases gathering mold / fungus .
Some of it ends up on Ebay and such , unfortunately some ends up in landfill . ( moldy oldies )
Just saying , lots to think about .

[Fedgrub]

I'm a Canon 100mm 2.8 fan - so sharp and a decently priced lens too for how great it is!

[Fettator]

I have the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L. I have had it for about 12 months. I cannot fault it but I am biased for Canon....though I am still trying to figure the whole macro thing out :lol::lol:

GB

[REV]

I used a Sigma 105 for years and was very happy with it. The only reason I changed to a Canon 100 is because of the image stability. I don't have to lug my quite heavy tripod through the bush to do my native orchids.:)

Cheers Rev.

[Mark L]

I don't have to lug my quite heavy tripod through the bush to do my native orchids.:)

You need to consider a light weight monopod then. With a tilt head it helps so much to keep the camera still.:th3:

[graham68ktm]

I have the canon 100 f2.8 L on a 7D and think its a great lens , i use some Kenko extension tubes to get a bit closer for tiny little jumping spiders with an aftermarket ring flash and find it a great setup which i will use on a FF camera in the future !:flowersnap:

[Roane Photo]

Macro is one of my passions and I would suggest for a APS-C camera that either of the 100mm canons would be the way to go and they will transition well to a FF camera in the future.

The 100mm will give you the equivalent of a 160mm full frame.

[Tannin]

Is there such a thing as a bad macro lens? I'm really struggling to think of anyone who has ever owned a macro lens that was no good. Plenty of people have regretted buying one that was too long or too short for them - mostly people wish that they had gone longer - but that's a different issue. When I bought my first macro lens I was talked into getting a 60 rather than a 90/100/105. I always found the 60 a bit difficult for close-up work, and eventually bought a 100L, which suits me better. Just the same, the 60 was a sweet lens, useful for much, much more than macro, and I still have it. I also bought a 35mm macro. Can't remember why, there must have been some reason at the time. Doubt that I ever did much macro work with it, but it too was a sweet little lens.

Long and the short of it: pick your length range (if in doubt, start with 100ish) and buy any of the usual suspects with confidence.

[jim]

Lots of great advice on this thread, and I'd like to reiterate the helpfulness of going long (150-200 if possible) when photographing insects.

Anyway hopefully the OP bought a good one and is satisfied with it. We may never know since their last post was in May last year.

[Tannin]

^ That would be because he got such excellent advice here that there has been no need for any follow-up questions, of course. :)

[William W]

Is there such a thing as a bad macro lens? I'm really struggling to think of anyone who has ever owned a macro lens that was no good.

I think that one (big) trap for young players is the Lens which labelled "Macro" or similar, usually as a suffix to a Zoom Lens's nomenclature.

These can sometimes be a "bad lens".

But yes I agree - in so far as 'proper' Macro Lenses go - there aren't any bad ones that can think of: I think that's because of the necessary optical excellence to make them a 'proper' Macro lens in the first instance.

I also agree - (albeit that I suggested the OP look at the Canon 50mm, as an option) - if in doubt about the choice of Focal Length then going a bit longer is safer than going a bit shorter.

I think that the 60mm Macro you have is probably a very good partner for the 100mm - its probable that sometimes you are used to the extra Working Distance of the 100mm, rather than actually needing it . I know that my 50mm macro doesn't get all that much use because I simply default to the 100mm when using either format.

I think that the Tripod Ring Mount for the 100 (and the 180) is very useful, that's an advantage of the 100 (and 180) have over the 50 and the 60. I don't think that the potential usefulness of the Tripod Ring Mount was mentioned previously in this conversation. (Referring to Canon's range of Macro lenses).

WW

[arthurking83]

Is there such a thing as a bad macro lens? I'm really struggling to think of anyone who has ever owned a macro lens that was no good. ...

Yep!

Me!!!

Nikon 105VR. Technically it's not a bad lens .. just not a good lens either. it's a neither here nor there kind of lens .. average, ho-hum, the kind of lens I suggest to ignore.
Note tho that this is only in terms of it's use as a macro lens.
As a portrait lens, it's fantastic. Bokeh is about as good as any other lens out there(given it's physical properties).
VR works quite well, and in normal useage, focusing is quick(if sometimes a little indecisive or whether to actually do it or not).

But you don't by a 105mm f/2.8 lens to do portraits, or general imaging, or for it's optical stabilisation .. you'd buy one for the ability to take high quality closeups or true 1:1 macro images.
Both Sigma's that I've tried are better(at image rendering), and even Tamron's older screw driven 90/2.8 is about the same IQ, with less aberrations to worry about.

So for the premium that Nikon charges for the 105VR Micro(which = macro in Nikon world!!) .. I suggest save your $s and go for a Sigma, or Tamron.

[Tannin]

But you don't by a 105mm f/2.8 lens to do portraits, or general imaging, or for it's optical stabilisation.

Well, I did. But I suppose when you say "you" you really only mean normal people.

[arthurking83]

Well, I did. But I suppose when you say "you" you really only mean normal people.

Sorry .. should have been more specific with respect to the lens naming:

make that a 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro lens :D

[William W]

Not too sure whether the above is simply banter or serious comment, but, I did indeed buy the EF 100/2.8 Macro in addition for its Macro capacity, for use as normal function Prime Lens to sit between my 85 and my 135, INSTEAD of buying the EF 100/2.

It occured to me to be both redundant and extravagant to buy BOTH the 100/2 and the 100/2.8 Macro so I opted to buy only one and the one I choose was the one with Macro capacity at the expense of the one stop of Aperture Speed.

Had I be buying later, I would have purchased the IS version of the 100mm Macro and the fact of it having IS would have made the purchasing choice even more easy for me.

The EF 100/2.8 makes for an excellent Prime Lens and it can be readily used for Portraiture, even in low light shooting.

I see no reason why others wouldn't (and shouldn't) consider using "macro" lenses as an addition to their cache of Prime Lenses and for those (macro) lenses to be used for general photographic use - for Portraiture and many other uses, too.

https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18397943-lg.jpg

“Young Athlete”, Sydney, SOP (circa 2006)
EOS 5D; EF100F/2.8Macro
F/2.8 @ 1/8s @ ISO1600
HH, Spot Meter, Manual Exposure, Available (room) Light, AWB; JPEG file.

WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2017 WMW 1965~1996

[arthurking83]

....

I see no reason why others wouldn't (and shouldn't) consider using "macro" lenses as an addition to their cache of Prime Lenses and for those (macro) lenses to be used for general photographic use - for Portraiture and many other uses, too.

.....


I think you've misunderstood W.

I didn't(and wouldn't) buy a macro lens just for portrait and or general imaging work .. that it can do such things well is simply a bonus.
The 105VR lens is just not the ideal lens to be using for macro work .. which is primary reason I got it.

My point was to anyone looking for a macro lens for their Nikon camera is to save their money and get any other macro lens other than the 105VR.
And there are better(specced) lenses that can do general photography duties as well or better too.

[Steve Axford]

Arthur, why do you hate this lens so much? It gets ok scores on the lens test sites (for what that is worth). In fact it scores very close to the Sony 90mm G OSS macro, which is my best macro lens (I have 5).

[MissionMan]

Arthur, why do you hate this lens so much? It gets ok scores on the lens test sites (for what that is worth). In fact it scores very close to the Sony 90mm G OSS macro, which is my best macro lens (I have 5).

From what I understand, the Tamron 90 scores higher in sharpness and is half the price.

[Steve Axford]

That wouldn't surprise me as the Nikon doesn't rate that highly on sharpness. DXOMARK says the lens rates best at f2.8. That makes absolutely no sense for a macro lens. Lensscore gives the Nikon almost the same overall score as the Sony, yet it terms of resolution the Nikon gets 1001 and the Sony 1150. I think the Nikon must do better as a portrait lens, but who in their right mind buys a macro lens primarily as a portrait lens?

[arthurking83]

Arthur, why do you hate this lens so much? ....

I did say "it's not a bad lens .. it's just not a good lens"

So I don't hate it .. just don't like it, or rate it highly.
It was in fact this lens that's put me off Nikon lenses, in a value for money sense.

DxO's rating makes sense, in that it works best at f/2.8, it's biggest issue is that it produces a lot of chromatic aberrations, and strangely the more you stop it down, the more it produces(usually it works the other way around for most lenses).

If you compare the 105VR against either of the Sigma macros on The Digital Picture, the 105VR looks OK, but slightly magenta/green rendering for black lines on white background, whereas the Sigma's both produce crystal clear black on white rendering.
In many instances the Ca isn't a problem(eg. highly colourful details, that can mask the colour issue) but when you do happen to capture a scene where Ca is produced, it's usually significant.

[Steve Axford]

Sounds like Nikon took the design for a portrait lens and modified it to take 1:1 macro. I guess that Nikon aren't putting macro as a high priority. Possibly smart as it is hard to get much of a lead in macro. Still, there are opportunities.

[arthurking83]

Sounds like Nikon took the design for a portrait lens and modified it to take 1:1 macro. I guess that Nikon aren't putting macro as a high priority. Possibly smart as it is hard to get much of a lead in macro. Still, there are opportunities.

they used to make some of the best macro/micro lenses.

(apparently) the 105/2.8 before the VR and the 105/4 before it, as well as the 200/4 and the 60/2.8's and 50/3.5's and 50/2.8's all work particularly well as macro lenses.
It's just that the 105VR isn't their best effort, and they have the historical knowhow to do better.

Note too tho that there are many happy customers out there too.
Maybe those owners just got one of the better samples of this lens, or maybe they just shoot specific types of macro/closeups scenes and they don't see the same results when they surface.

This is a lens type that Nikon seem to have completely ignored for a while now.
For the past few years, they have been on the road to modernises all of their old lenses that used the screw type focus system(AF/AF-D type lenses) .. to the more modern AFS type lenses.
The old 200/4 is an AF-D type lens, that has yet to be updated in any way to the more modern AF system.

But instead, they create a 8-15mm fisheye zoom that in all likelyhood not many folks are really interested in.
Back in the day, Nikon also had what was once regarded as one of the best micro(oops! ... I meant macro ... for non Nikon folks to comprehend!! :D) lenses. While it didn't do 1:1, it did do 1:2 which is(I think) the only zoom lens to do greater than 1:3 or so repro).

[jim]

That's true Arthur. My 105 f2.8 AF (not D), unfortunately no longer working, was stunningly good as a macro lens (and perfectly ok for portraits too). My current 200 f4 is even better. Really surprising if they've dropped the ball with the current version.

[Steve Axford]

I seem to remember when I started macro photography that most of the experts used Nikon gear, but that was 10-15 years ago.

[Tannin]

I've bought three macro lenses over the years:


1: Canon EF-S 60mm. I bought this for doing macro work. (Actually, my girlfriend gave it to me as a present, which was nice of her.) In practice, I tinkered a bit with macro subjects, but mostly used it as a long normal / mild telephoto prime. (On APS-C, 60mm is equivalent to 96mm on full frame.) In that role, I used it a lot and became very fond of it. The only thing I really missed was IS. As I gradually switched (mostly) over to APS-H and full frame bodies (which you can't use EF-S lenses on) it became a bit neglected. My girlfriend now has it on semi-permanent loan. She uses it quite a bit. Lovely little lens.
2: Tokina 35mm. I honestly can't remember what I bought this for, though it was probably Arthur's fault. It was always too short to be much use for macro work, but I loved using it as a general-purpose prime. (Wide on full frame; normal on APS-C.) Now that I think of it, I seem to remember wanting it so as to have a macro lens to use when my girlfriend was hogging the 60. Eventually I replaced it with a 35mm f/1.4L Canon (non-macro) prime: three times the cost and three times the weight. I'm not entirely convinced that the swap was a good idea.
3: Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS. Once again, I mostly bought it for macro work. Once again, I mostly use it as a general-purpose prime - though even on full frame it's a bit long to be really useful in that role.


So there we have three macro lenses, all bought to do macro work, and all used (mostly) as ordinary prime lenses. Possibly this says more about me and my habits than it does about the use of macro lenses. But perhaps it reminds us that macro lenses aren't only good for macro subjects.

[Steve Axford]

I have no less than 5 macros.
- Sigma 180mm macro. This is the second lens I ever bought in about 2003. I used it initially for both telephoto and for macro. It is a great lens and I would still be using it if the aperture didn't jam sometimes and Kennedy's tell me it is too old to get parts for.
- Canon MP-E 65mm, bought in 2006. A remarkable lens and still the only one that can take up to 5:1 macros. Takes beautiful pictures! But, it only focuses very close and it has no focus ring, only a magnification ring, so it is very hard to use. In spite of that it still gets some use when I want to photograph something very small. I now use it with a metabones adaptor on a Sony A7R2.
- Canon 100mm macro IS, bought in 2012. A good lens, but no better than the Sigma. Gets a lot of use mainly because the sigma is now dodgy.
- Canon 60mm EF-S macro. Ok lens, bought for me with the Canon 7DII and other equipment by the BBC.
- Sony 90mm G OSS lens. Currently my best macro lens which I use with the Sony A7R2. It is significantly sharper than my other macro lenses.

I use all of these lenses currently, but the Sigma only rarely, as it makes funny noises now. The Canon lenses, I use with 3 Canon cameras exclusively for time lapse. Sometimes all 3 are being used at the same time. The Sony is used with a Sony camera for stills and some time lapse.

Unlike Tanin, all of my macro lenses are used as macro lenses. I did once use the Sigma 180mm as a telephoto and I do sometimes use the Sony 90mm as a 90mm, but I am mainly a macro photographer.

[William W]

I (presently - since 2004) have two macro lenses, both Canon. I have basically explained why I bought the EF 100/2.8M - primarily for use as a macro lens on both APS-C and 135 Format, but additionally for its use as a Prime Lens to sit between my 85 and 135.

I have mainly always chosen use Prime Lenses for the majority of my photography: up until 2004 I think I owned only one zoom lens and then, until about 2010, I only owned two zoom lenses . . . I spoiled myself in 2010 and bought a "general purpose" zoom, the EF24 to 105 L F/4 IS USM. Subsequently I bought two more zoom and inherited another one, so I have six zooms now: that still feels quite odd to me.

The other macro lens I have is the EF50/2.5 (and the life size converter). This lens I purchased primarily for my business use: forensic and archival image recording, for example images of Client's artworks, stamps, coins etc. In addition I found it quite an handy lens to have in the bag for a quick and easy close-up style rings / cake champagne glasses shot at a Wedding reception. It is a cute little lens and it doesn't get much use now, but it has always been difficult for me to sell a lens which is little used but still usable.

Prior to 2004, when we cut over to digital, (and changed systems) our 135 format gear was Nikon and we had no Nikon micro lenses, because we had no day to day need for one, especially considering that we had 645 and 6x7 format bellows and suitable lenses if any macros or close-ups were required.

For my personal work, I don't do much macro, but for several years I've has hot and cold thoughts about buying the MP-E 65mm just for the thrill of fiddling at (much) closer than 1:1. After reading Steve's comments I have the hot feelings for the lens again . . . (so if I buy the MP-E this afternoon, I can blame Steve).

It is interesting to read the to and fro opinions about Nikon's Micro lenses.

WW

[Steve Axford]

I do apologise, William, because the MP-E is a very easy lens to hate. It can only be used in one of two ways (at least, that is my experience).
1. As hand held with a flash (I use the Canon macro twin flash) and you focus by moving the camera. This takes some practice, but is quite fast and produces good pictures when you get the hang of it. Even some rudimentary focus stacking is possible using this method. The disadvantages of this method are dof (lack of good focus stacking) and you have to use a flash, which gives you a black background and harsh lighting.
2. Use with a tripod and good focus macro rail, something like RRS. This is slow, painful and produces beautiful pictures when you get it right, which isn't easy. I use this method for things that don't move and the flash for things that do.

It is also a very easy lens to love as it takes wonderful pics even if it is very time consuming.

[William W]

I am still belly laughing after reading your opening sentence of apology - that certainly lightened my day, thanks . . .

As a technical comment though, I haven't devoted a great deal of time to researching the functions, techniques and procedures of those who use the MP-E, but contained within the research that I have done I haven't noticed nor did I even consider that the lens could be used as per procedure (1.) above. That is inspiring news indeed and puts me a step closer to a purchase.

Tripods, suitable heads and a fine adjustment, sturdy two way macro focusing rail - all I already have and I had budgeted on buying the Canon (dedicated) twin flash, if I buy the MP-E lens.

***


. . . It is also a very easy lens to love as it takes wonderful pics even if it is very time consuming . . .

oh dear, you know how to stress a man . . . the credit card is very close to being used.

Seriously though, thank you very much for the information: your comments have been extremely informative and very useful for me.

WW

[Steve Axford]

Glad to be of help - and you can't say I didn't warn you.
Just another word on hand held. It is very hard to hold the camera steady enough to catch the focus with hand held. I found that by doing things like holding the subject in your left hand (eg a stick with a small insect on one end) and resting the camera on your left arm works well. That ensures that while the camera and subject may move, they move together. Resting the arm holding the camera on a tree or other steady object is also good, provided the subject stays still and is within range. I always used the flash in manual as ETTL never worked very well. One thing about flash is that you don't have to worry about the distant background as there isn't any. It is black.
With a tripod and no flash you need to worry about the background. The lens picks up bright spots that are way out of the supposed field of view, but once you get used to that you can get some really good photos.

[William W]

Ta.

Have a great weekend.

regards,

William