New lens for canon 70d

[Azar]

Ok I'm looking for a new macro lens. I have seen a lot of good pics around by a bunch of different people. So what would the majority say is the right one. I've heard from 40mm to 100mm. .
Pics will be shot with in 2ft of distance, and 3-8" in water mostly under t5. And some led..

[Reef Bass]

Canon EF 2.8 100 mm USM. Minimum focal distance around 6".

[IPT]

Canon EF 2.8 100 mm USM. Minimum focal distance around 6".

Add some cheapo extension rings and you can get in even closer!

A spire of Hoar frost I isolated on my deck rail with the Canon 100mm macro and extension tubes.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/6.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/6.jpg.html)

Don't remember if I had the tubes on for these or not. They were a probably a 1/4 tall or so.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/5.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/5.jpg.html)

[Useful_Idiot]

That's a neat pic I'm gonna have to look into those.

What's the difference between minimum focal distance and minimum working distance?

[IPT]

What's the difference between minimum focal distance and minimum working distance?

Hm, I'm not a 100% sure but I think they are essentially one and the same.

[Reef Bass]

Yup.

Cool Hoar frost shots Louis!

[jroovers]

Hm, I'm not a 100% sure but I think they are essentially one and the same.

I'm not 100% sure either but I think the focal distance is from your sensor to the object, and your working distance is from your lens end to the object.

[jroovers]

Add some cheapo extension rings and you can get in even closer!

A spire of Hoar frost I isolated on my deck rail with the Canon 100mm macro and extension tubes.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/6.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/6.jpg.html)

Don't remember if I had the tubes on for these or not. They were a probably a 1/4 tall or so.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/5.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/5.jpg.html)

Those are really cool!

[Azar]

Canon EF 2.8 100 mm USM. Minimum focal distance around 6".
Ok , now if I drop that down to a 50mm. Would I be able to get a focal of 3"..
.. basically I need the shortest focal distance I can. 2-3".. if that is possible

[Azar]

Those came out great ipt

[IPT]

Ok , now if I drop that down to a 50mm. Would I be able to get a focal of 3"..
.. basically I need the shortest focal distance I can. 2-3".. if that is possible

Why do you want a shorter focal length? If you are talking about a smaller minimum focusing distance then extension tube will do that. I'm not sure of the exact numbers but any given lens (50mm, 100mm, it doesn't matter) will have a smaller minimum focusing distance (you can get closer to the subject) with extension tubes attached.

Also, with a longer focal length like 100mm the subject at 3 inches will appear larger then the same subject viewed at the same 3 inches with a 50mm lens. Does that make sense?

[IslandCrow]

IPT makes a good point. Basically, with a true macro lens with a 1:1 magnification ratio, you're going to get the same picture at the minimum focal distance of each lens regardless of its focal length. In other words, on a full frame camera, you're going to get a photograph of a 35mm (i.e. the width of the sensor/film) section of the subject if you're at the minimum focal length whether you're using a 100mm lens or a 50mm lens. The difference is that a longer focal length will allow you to take that same picture from further back. This can be especially useful with aquarium photography, where you often times cannot physically get very close to your subject. I don't think I've ever found myself saying, "I wish I had a shorter length macro lens". It's usually more like, "time to break out the extension tubes and slap them on my 300mm telephoto because I can't get as close to my subject as I'd like."

[Reef Bass]

Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Lens

[jroovers]

Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Lens

That would be nice, but very tricky to use for aquarium photography based on what I've read without some very specialized gear to go with it (rails and flashes).

Islandcrow and IPT have some good points... a 50 or 60 mm macro is likely 1:2 and not a true 1:1 macro, you're likely better off with something in the 90 to 100 mm range and is true 1:1. If you can, I'd rent or borrow a lens for a day and see what you are happy with. IMO your best bet is a Canon 100 2.8, or a Tamron 90 mm or potentially a Sigma.

[IPT]

I do think there is a 180mm true macro lens too :).

[Misled]

Sigma makes a 105mm and a 150mm, (the 150mm is known as Bugma by those in the know). :D

[jroovers]

Sigma makes a 105mm and a 150mm, (the 150mm is known as Bugma by those in the know). :D

I hadn't heard of the Bugma, but certainly of the Bigma lol :)

[Misled]

There are bug people out there that named it first!!!! (I've heard Bigma too) :lol:

[woodnaquanut]

Islandcrow and IPT have some good points... a 50 or 60 mm macro is likely 1:2 and not a true 1:1 macro, you're likely better off with something in the 90 to 100 mm range and is true 1:1.

I don't think that is true. Take for instance the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens. Specs at B&H state 1:1. The problem for aquarium (and perhaps other) photography is the minimum focus distance is 7.8 inches.

Contrast that with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens with a MFD of 12 inches. It lets you take pictures of something further back in the tank.

The part I'm not clear on is this MFD measured from the front of the lens or the actual focal plane? On the same B&H page the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens lists "Focus Range from Sensor Plane: 9.4-12.2". That is so much clearer!

[ksr.aaron]

Man I am in the market for camera... looks like your helping me with decision!

[IPT]

real world with a small margin of error since I was measuring focusing on the label from an empty bottle of beer I drank with diner.

Canon 100mm Macro lens on a 7D mark ii, and I was too lazy to remove the lens cap (a UV filter).

Naked - 5 3/4 inches from the end of the lens to the bottle.
100mm with a 35mm extension tube - 4 3/4 inches lens to the bottle.
with all 3 tubes (35 + 20 + 12mm) 4.5 inches from the end of the lens to the bottle.

What was amazing was the view. LOL, you could really see the dot pattern used to print the label! Pretty cool.

[jroovers]

I don't think that is true. Take for instance the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens. Specs at B&H state 1:1. The problem for aquarium (and perhaps other) photography is the minimum focus distance is 7.8 inches.

Contrast that with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens with a MFD of 12 inches. It lets you take pictures of something further back in the tank.

The part I'm not clear on is this MFD measured from the front of the lens or the actual focal plane? On the same B&H page the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens lists "Focus Range from Sensor Plane: 9.4-12.2". That is so much clearer!

I think you are right on the 60 mm that it is 1:1, but I think the 50 is 1:2. MFD in my understanding is measured from the object to the sensor (since the image is focused on your sensor, not the end of the lens). Regardless, I think the Canon 100 is going to give you a bit more flexibility in working distance when you consider the extra reach... you can't get as close I don't think with the 100, but when you compare it to the 50 especially the 1:1 vs 1:2, and the extra 40 to 50 mm of reach it makes up for it. It is a bit more expensive however.

[jroovers]

I was measuring focusing on the label from an empty bottle of beer I drank with diner.


Hopefully you had another one backing that up lol :)

[raidendex]

Which extension tubes would you suggest?

[IPT]

Which extension tubes would you suggest?

Mine are cheep. They are essentially just a spacer that pushes the lens further from the sensor. I think mine are a Kenko set for like $70. All they really need to do is carry the electronic signal to keep the focusing. There is no glass so quality isn't really an issue. At least that's what I remember from when i bought them many, many years ago :).

[Misled]

I have a Kenko set also. What Louis said is true. No glass but electronics for AF and aperture.

[toothybugs]

I do think there is a 180mm true macro lens too :).

For the discriminating macro photographer :)

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_180mm_f_3_5l_macro_usm

[raidendex]

These Kenko DG Auto Extension Tube Set for the Canon EOS AF Mount (http://www.amazon.com/Kenko-Auto-Extension-Canon-Mount/dp/B000U8Y88M/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1420758229&sr=1-1&keywords=kenko+canon)

Any reason not to get these instead? Vello Auto Extension Tube Set for Canon EOS (http://www.amazon.com/Vello-Auto-Extension-Tube-Canon/dp/B00BYQL54O/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1420758229&sr=1-5&keywords=kenko+canon)

Thanks! :)

[Misled]

Those are the set, (Kenko), I have, (Nikon mount). The fit and finish is excellent. I can't speak for the others. Whether they will fit tight without any looseness I can not say. They may be fine.

[TheSaltySnailer]

Add some cheapo extension rings and you can get in even closer!

A spire of Hoar frost I isolated on my deck rail with the Canon 100mm macro and extension tubes.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/6.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/6.jpg.html)

Don't remember if I had the tubes on for these or not. They were a probably a 1/4 tall or so.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/5.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/5.jpg.html)


Amazing!