MP-E 65mm vs EF 180mm Macro Lenses

Nope, it only goes from 1x to 5x. So you'll have to get the 180 and use some tubes or something to get more than 1x when you need it.

1x is indeed the largest field of view (smallest magnification) with the MP-E 65. Working distances with this lens are very short. I'm not sure that a 180 is the best choice for studio work for magnifications of 0.25-1x though - you will probably find the working distances a little long at the lower magnifications. The upside of this is that you don't have to spend as much on lenses to get the coverage you need. The downside of the MP-E 65 is that you may need a rather more expensive lighting set-up - the MR 24 EX macro flash is not a cheap item.

What about the 100mm macro? It's cheaper than the 180 and by all accounts an incredible lens. Like its L cousin it can focus from infinity to 1x, and I've never heard any complaints about it.

You should very seriously consider the 100 mm f2.8 macro lens. It is not too expensive and gets from infinity to 1:1 easily with decent working distance. Secondly, you can use it with a 1.4x extender and extension tubes to go to at least 2:1 with not too much trouble. Then, if you want, you can use another technique, stacking lenses, to get to greater reproduction ratios still, but I do not think you will need to. Check Mark Plonsky's explanations here on photo.net. He explains how to use stacked lenses to get incredible macro results.

I think you can get off much more cheaply than the MP65 or the 180 macro and still get dynamite results!

Jeremy, where are Mark Plonsky's explanations?

I hate to say this, but I think you need BOTH the MP-E 65 and a 'regular' macro lens -- as others have said, the 100/2.8 is probably your best bet. I have extensive experience with the latter and have borrowed the MP-E 65 with Canon ringflash a few times.

The '65 has a minimum magnification of 1:1. You'll need something else to get out to 1:3. However, no other Canon macro lens will get you close to a full-frame image of a 3 mm insect. You can jury-rig the 100 (or the 180, or the 50) with extension tube and teleconverters to get to higher magnifications but it's a clumsy process, compared to the effortless way the '65 goes out to 5X.

However, the downside of the '65 is that working distances are extremely small, so it's almost essential to get the Canon ringlite (MR14), which is expensive and makes odd 'broken doughnut' reflections on shiny surfaces (see example images below) or the even more expensive MT24 twin light unit. What either of these might do in terms of generating reflections off of a glass photo tank, I shudder to think.

Here's a couple of pictures of a jumping spider made with the MP-65 and ringflash. The animal was about 1 cm long and the front of the flash was probably about 25 mm from the spider's face:

The first image is at about 1.3:1 and the other is at about 3:1. As you can see the lens is very sharp but (as is inevitable at these magnifications) there's not much DOF (I think I was shooting at about f16 -- if you stop down much more than that, diffraction will start to kill resolution).

Thanks for all the advice. :) I'm beginning to worry that Mark may be right--maybe I do need both. One possibility I've been looking into is getting one of the regular macros like the 180 or 100 and using bellows to take me up to 5:1 when necessary. (Actually, about 7:1 would probably be ideal for my smallest critters... so what I really want out of my full system is a range from 7:1 up to 1:3.)

Does anyone have experience using bellows with these Canon lenses, and recommendations regarding that idea? What's the formula for the magnification I can get with bellows?

If I remember correctly, the magnification with bellows or extension tubes is roughly equal to:

extension/focal length

Thus, to get to 1:1 with a 100 mm lens, you need 100 mm of extension (this doesn't account for whatever optical tricks occur with an internally focused lens). So to get to 7:1 with a 100 mm lens, you'd need about 700 mm of extension -- more than two feet of bellows or tubes (don't even think about what you'd need with a 180 mm lens!). Not a very practical idea. That's why many dedicated bellows-usage macro lenses have very short focal lengths.

Also, the 100 or 180 mm macros are optically designed for magnifications around 1:1, and may not work very well at much higher reproduction ratios. I'd guess you could manage up to maybe 2:1 or 2.5:1 with a 100 or 180 mm lens with combinations of extension tubes and teleconverters, but beyond that would be very awkward and possibly (probably) not very good optically. That much magnification will change the effective f stop as well, by roughly the same factor as the magnification. At very high magnifications, diffraction will rear its ugly head even if you use the lens wide open, let alone stopped down. Let's see... if you did manage to get to 7:1 with a 100 mm f2.8 lens, the effective aperture with the lens wide open would be roughly about f18 or so.

I think at least one other responder mentioned using stacked lenses (typically a short focal length lens mounted reversed in front of a longer focal length lens). I've never tried that but have heard that it works (although the same diffraction issues and optical problems would crop up, especially at higher magnifications).

Unless your insects are very, very shy, skip the excellent but very expen$ive 180 and get the 100 mm for your low- magnification images. Or check out the excellent macros from Sigma, Tamron, etc.

I only have the 100/2.8 and with 68mm of extension tubes I can get just past 1:2. On my 300D I can get 11mm to fill the width of the frame. HTH.

Oops...I mean just past 2:1.

I only have the 100/2.8 and with 68mm of extension tubes I can get just past 1:2. On my 300D I can get 11mm to fill the width of the frame. HTH.

This makes sense given that an internally focused lens like the (new version) 100/2.8 apparently reduces focal length in order to achieve close focus. Somebody who is a better optical engineer than me can explain this mechanism more clearly, but you still need an impractically large amount of extension to achieve 7:1 reproduction with a 100 mm lens.

If I were in the market for a dedicated macro lens, I'd get the Tamron 180/3.5 for it's build and optical quality, for it's long working distance, for it's reasonable price (only 200$ more than the Canon 100/2.8 macro USM), for it's IF and for Tamron's excellent compatibility reputation. HTH.

Happy shooting ,
Yakim.

Mark Chappell's comments are right on target. I also like to photograph small insects similar to what you are looking to do, and I use the MP-E-65 and the 180mm macro. I think the MP-E-65 is by far your best choice if you want to photograph subjects 3mm long. Further, I believe you will be frustrated if you try to use the MP-E-65 with anything other than a dedicated macro flash, preferably one of the two Canon ones. There is a new Sigma ring flash that is alleged to work with digital cameras, it might be a last-ditch choice, but I'd recommend the Canons (note that Canon's old ML-3 ring flash does NOT work with newer cameras).

you'll need another lens for things at ratios less than 1:1. Most any up-to-date Canon or 3rd party 90 or 100mm macro lens will do. If you're trying to save money (and sounds like you will be) you might consider the Vivitar 100mm lens. I am biased towards this lens (it was my first macro lens) but it is good value for the money. It goes to 1:2 ration on it's own, to get it to 1:1 you must use a diopter (screw-on "filter") that comes with the lens. Very high quality images. You'll need to put together two adapter rings (a 55 to 58mm adapter ring, and the macrolite 58C adapter ring) to use it with one of the Canon macro flashes. The MP-E-65 comes with a built in mounting ring for the macro flashes. If you end up buying a Canon 180, or any third party lens, you'll need to buy a separate macrolite adapter for it.

If for some reason you buy a 180mm lens, unless money is no object, I'd consider a third party lens. I paid through the nose for the Canon, but the only benefits of it are a better build, and compatibility with the Canon teleconverters I use with my larger lens. In retrospect, probably not worth paying twice as much!

Jason,
I've tried many techniques to get high magnification images with different levels of success:

• Stacked lenses: put a short to normal focal lenght lens reversed on a tele. The short lens acts as a high power diopter and gives you magnifications of roughly (focal lenght tele)/(focal lenght wide). Lens design plays a role there; for example, stacking a 50/f1.8 on the 100f/2.8 macro USM gives about 3X at max. magnification (macro lens at 1:1)
• Wide angle inversed on camera body: the wider the lens, th higher the magnification. The 28-135IS gave me about 3x at 28mm. You need an adaptor to couple the lens and retain diafragma control. The only one commercially available is from Novoflex. You can also make your own Inverse adaptor
• Bellows and macrophotolenses: Canon has two extraordinary macrophoto lenses: The 20f/3.5 and the 35f/2.8. They look more like a microscope objective than a photography lens and mounted on bellows they give you very high magnifications. The 35f/2.8 goes from 1x-5x and the 20f/3.5 gets you from 2x up to 10x (see FD Macrophoto lenses. The magnification rations may make your eyes pop out, but actually it's very cumbersome to use. Bellows are very heavy, working distances are nihil and the diafragma is in front on th lens. On top of that you need to meter with the diafragma closed down. For living (and moving) subjects,if you don't scare them away when you reach for the diafragma lever,they will be out of your sight by the time you close it down and get you hand to the shutter.

If I ever buy an EOS body, it will be only to use the 65mm MP-E lens with the MT24 flash.

Not to be discourteous to Mark, who was kind enough to post some of his samples, the ring flash has its severe draw backs in that it shows on the eyes of your insect subjects.

I think Krister Hall who has been using this lens extensively uses the MT24

(See: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=880342).

I wonder if Nikon would ever come up with an MP-E equivalent...

Not to be discourteous to Mark, who was kind enough to post some of his samples, the ring flash has its severe draw backs in that it shows on the eyes of your insect subjects.

It's definitely an issue, but with eyes as reflective as those of jumping spiders, you're going to get some pretty stark highlight images of the two flashes even if you use an MT24. One may find that to be more 'natural' than the very distracting half-doughnut reflections of a ringflash, but it's still going to look a bit odd. For most insects the exoskeleton isn't as mirror-like and a ringflash works fine, and will give more even lighting than an MT24 (whether that's good or bad is mostly a matter of aesthetics).

Both of these flash units are pretty bulky and tend to bump into things if you attempt to use them on insects sitting in vegetation. Very frustrating to be almost in focus, then make a slight position adjustment only to have the flash head bump a leaf and startle your target into escape mode. On the other hand, hand-holding an MP-E 65 at a high reproduction ratio is daunting to say the least, so much of the time the rig is going to be on a tripod and hence not very manuverable.

Basically, the MP-E 65 and dedicated flash (ringflash, MT24) greatly simplify high- magnification macro photography, but it's still a tricky, tedious, and often frustrating endeavor. Fun, though.

Example image of a non-shiny target with MP-E 65 and ringflash: aphids on an ocotillo blossom (about 3:1):

#!**$^!**!% forgot the image....

"Basically, the MP-E 65 and dedicated flash (ringflash, MT24) greatly simplify high- magnification macro photography, but it's still a tricky, tedious, and often frustrating endeavor. Fun, though."

I couldn't agree more.

"Both of these flash units are pretty bulky and tend to bump into things if you attempt to use them on insects sitting in vegetation. Very frustrating to be almost in focus, then make a slight position adjustment only to have the flash head bump a leaf and startle your target into escape mode."

My flash rig/lens are even bulkier than this and even less manuverable. Macronikkors with manual preset diaphrams and bulky flashes on a bracket. Agree with what you are saying completely.

"On the other hand, hand-holding an MP-E 65 at a high reproduction ratio is daunting to say the least, so much of the time the rig is going to be on a tripod and hence not very manuverable."

Hand holding- one can get used to it.

If a 500mm f/4 IS plus TC plus Flash is possible.. not very different here :-)

Hand holding- one can get used to it.

If a 500mm f/4 IS plus TC plus Flash is possible.. not very different here :-)

Well.... yes, it is, at least in my experience. MP-E 65 at ~3X: not stabilized, not autofocus, depth of field about 0.5-1.0 mm, heartbeat amplitude as transmitted through lens: about 2X depth of field and maybe 2-5% of the resolved image area (in other words, heartbeat moves the camera up and down by a very substantial fraction of the area in view), exposure time 1/250 max (with flash at small apertures; exposure largely determined by flash duration).

500 mm + 1.4X (or even 2X): stabilized (at least mine is), autofocus, depth of field and image area vastly greater than any heartbeat-induced movement (partly because all that mass dampens such motions), shutter speed 1/1000 or faster (unless you forget you have a flash mounted...).

I've found that a big telephoto is much heavier than an MP-E 65 + flash rig, but far easier to hand hold for consistently good pictures. I have hand-held an MP-E 65 in my limited experience with it, but only if I could rest my hands on a solid object -- in the case of the jumping spider pictures above, on a tabletop.

Thanks for all the great advice, guys. I'm very amazed by people are on this site; I've been involved in several dozen online communities for all kinds of topics and this seems to be the best I've run across in terms of helpfulness and expertise. Nice. :)

I'm pretty sure I'm going with the MP-E 65mm, the Canon 100mm USM macro, and the MT-24EX flash.

Jason. Always good advice here. I had put this together for macro friends at work, may be it will help you also. http://postit.rutgers.edu/uploads/Macro%5FWork%5FDistance1%2Edoc

If you go the two lens route, the new sigma 150 makes a fine alternate to the Canon 180, and leaves money for the MP-E 65. But, just be aware you will need gobs of supplemental light at these magnifications. Enjoy. Jack