Todd Masters , May 18, 2006; 01:54 p.m.
I have a friend starting a ortho practice and was asking me which
lense would be best. Any of you macro experts out there have a
recommendation of the canon 100 vs. sigma 105 or other better
configurations/lenses?
Peter White , May 18, 2006; 01:59 p.m.
I'd use the Canon 180mm and either of their macro flash units. That will give you a bit more room to work with and position the lights better for eliminating shadows.
Alistair Windsor , May 18, 2006; 02:25 p.m.
This is one of the few times I would recommend a ring light. There are a number of "dental" comments on Photo.Net's review of the 100/2.8 macro.
There was another "dentist" seeking photographic advice and you might like to get in touch with him.
R. Moreno , May 18, 2006; 02:45 p.m.
I second the opinion of a ringlight. The canon ringlight attaches directly to the 50mm and 100mm macro lenses. I have tried using an adapter that attaches via the filter threads, but don't recommend it.
Peter White , May 18, 2006; 02:53 p.m.
The adapters work fine. I use it with the 90mm TS-E. I don't know if you need the adapter for the 180 or not, but it's immaterial.
Robin Sibson , May 18, 2006; 03:31 p.m.
Yes, the Macrolite Adapters work fine, although I have known one to jam when screwed into a filter rather then directly onto the lens. The 180/3.5 requires the 72C adapter, and all other Canon EF and EF-S macro lenses have the fitting for the MR14-EX and MT-24EX built in.
As to what setup you need for dental work, for that you will need to ask a dentist. Don't forget to say whether the camera being used is FF or 1.6-factor.
Todd Masters , May 18, 2006; 04:29 p.m.
he is looking at the 20 or 30D and the canon ringlight and leaning towards the canon 100mm Macro, unless from experience someone can suggest something better.
Peter, is the 180mm focal length going to be that much better than the 100mm or will that be too close for a full mouth shot at "dentist length away" with the 4" dof he will need? Seems like a pretty niche lense, is it worth considering this - seems like the price and size of this sucker might make it a little more challenging for a dental office environment? I will start searching for comparisons on other threads. Thanks all, very helpful so far.
Peter White , May 18, 2006; 05:05 p.m.
I'm thinking that the longer working distance might be a bit easier on the patient as well as make lighting the mouth easier.
Peter Blaise Monahon , May 18, 2006; 08:50 p.m.
Dental photography - head, face, mouth, teeth, x-ray?
.
I presume you mean for faces and smiles, NOT intraoral, where there are TONS of alternatives that tether to the computer or a TV for constant video and frame grabbing, or now capture to their own SD card (but how do you know waht you are capturing if there's no live feed?). See
http://www.suni.com/products/intraoral_camera.html
(link)
http://www.airtechniques.com/products/detailview2.aspx?id=66
http://www.camsight.com/1optumiintraoralcamera2.html
and equivalent - about the size of a toothbrush.
You're not getting ANY Canon lens - or ANY SLR, DLSR, or even a smaller all-purpose digital camera - deep inside someone's mouth and on top of someone's molar.
The dentists I support have MANY digital "cameras", each dedicated to each putpose, and frankly, an under $200US Panasonic/Leica point-and-shoot does fine for full face and smiles and "accessible" mnacro, while the intraoral cameras and digital x-rays do the "see the crack" selling.
I'd LOVE to see someone using exclusively a DSLR - any examples?
Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Alpha Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
Camsight Intraoral Digital Dental Camera from http://www.camsight.com/1optumiintraoralcamera2.html
Rick Sikora 
, May 18, 2006; 09:00 p.m.
Todd,
I'm a practicing orthodontist (24 years) and I've been digital now for about 8 years. I have a 20D and a Canon 100mm macro that I don't use at the office. It's overkill. I use several ancient Epson 3 megapixel point and shoots. The Canon macro system is great but in an orthodontic assitant's hands a point and shoot (read much lighter and easier to handle) is all that is necessary. Email me off site and I will be happy to share my experiences with your friend, both film and digital if he wants to hear the entire story. Regarding ring lights, personal preference but the lighting is very flat. Some shadows from a point source are not always objectionable. They add some depth to the image. I would be happy to share what I know with you and your friend.You can also speak with my treatment coordinators and orthodontic assistants that have handled both my Canon system and the point and shoot. They will tell you which they prefer and why straight up. I think it would be wiser to take the money not spent on a Canon system and invest those dollars in the "Dolphin" imaging sytem for the office. I am in no way affiliated with Dolphin just a very happy user. All the best, Rick
