Feasible lens for macro?

Hi,

After using the Canon 180mm Macro lens i'm truly impressed with the performance. However, i'm thinking of using the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 slap on a +4 to turn it into a macro lens. First i get a working distance of 70-200 which i will mostly use around 160-190 rarely hitting 200mm.

I'm wondering if it's possible or have i missed out something here?

Understand that a dedicated macro lens works great if not better then the 70-200 with a filter. My consideration is this, the canon 180L is f/3.5 whereas the 70-200 is f/2.8, even if i'm putting on a +4 filter, i will not be losing too much light.

Thus i'm confuse which to get, a dedicated macro 180L or the 70-200 f/2.8 L. How about even the 200 f/2.8L with a close up filter or the 500D?

If handholding the 300 f/4 L is possible i might even consider, which i believe i'm not able to do so.

Your views and considering please.

Cheers!

You also have the option of an extension tube instead of the filter. I use them on my Nikon 70-200mm AF-S VR. As for light loss, most macro shots are at f/8 or tighter anyway so it's not a real issue.

I'm so confuse at the moment.

300 f/4 is
180mm macro..

Here's a link with more info about extension tubes. They have no glass in them so image quality is not affected like it sometimes can be with close-up filters which are actually additional lenses attached to the front of your existing lens. The extension tube attaches to the rear of your lens and just makes it longer. They just allow you to get closer to your subject and still be able to focus.

http://www.thkphoto.com/products/kenko/slrc-04.html

hope this helps end your confusion

Extension tubes are much better then close up lenses than add in the front of the lens, but light losese when using tubes, and you will lose auto focus( I do care about auto focus with my 105 VR but not the 200mm F4).

Often the choice is a matter of convenience. If I don't mind carrying them, I will select one,or more of my macro lenses. Optionally, an extension tube (I keep a Kenko 25mm Uniplus tube handy) works best with shorter focal length lenses. With longer lenses like my 70-210, a +2 diopter achromat is convenient. As Mike mentioned, macrophotgraphy is seldom done at full aperture, so whether your aperture is f/2.8, or 3.5, or whatever, it's not too important!

With the Canon system one of the best, and most versatile macro lenses is the 90mm tilt/shift lens. It is strictly manual, but oh what it can do!

If a person does lots of macro work, I personally think for best results you cannot beat a dedicated macro lens. With that being said I use both a Nikon 200mm macro lens, but I also use my 70-200 VR lens with a Canon 500D attached. I get excellent results with the 500D, I personally don't think anyone could tell the differece between the macro and the 500D set-up. What you need to remember with the 500D is that you have a very narrow focus zone to work in. I also you use extension tubes! they all work and it just depends on your needs.
http://www.impressionsofnature.net

It depends, do you want 1:1 magnification or "close-ups"? I have a 100mm Macro lens but shoot most of my butterfly/dragonfly images with a 300mm f/4 IS with extension tubes and 1.4x TC handheld. The 100 macro is now being used for mostly abstract macro images.

I can't believe that the 70-200 with close-up lens or with ext. tubes can come close to delivering the image quality you get with the 180 macro lens. That macro is one of Canon's best lenses.

Guess the 180mm still beats the 70-200 , so what if you are given a choice.

1) 180mm macro f/3.5L
2) 300mm f/4 IS L with Ex tube + 500D

Primary usage will be macro photography.

Cheers!

I have both. The 180 delivers better detail, the 300 gives pretty good working distance with or without the 500D. Your choice should be based on what you want to photograph.

My main interest now will be shooting butterflies solely. So i guess it's the 180mm instead of the 300mm? It's really difficult to choose when both are of equal pricing.

I sugest you get both, because butterflies have small and big ones. And big one like to fly around, you really can't do anything with your 180 when they fly around, 300mm is the best choice.

Depends on what you want to shoot, more than anything. The 180mm is very versatile as as you can go all the way down to life size (1:1) without accessories then out to infinity. If you are shooting butterflies, then longer FL is more important than anything.

The formula for magnification with a diopter is FL lens/ FL diopter. FL diopter is 1000/ diopter power, so 250mm for a +4 diopter. So a +4 at 200mm gives 200/250 which is 0.8x which is a subject 45 x 30mm projected onto a 35mm film frame, which is quite a small butterfly. It gets better at the 70mm end, but you're too close.

The 300mm with a 500D +2 diopter 300/500 at infinity or 0.6x. The 300mm f4 focuses quite close by itself and gets to 0.24x, which is a 150 x 100mm subject frame and it has IS which will help with the quick framing you may need with butterflies. I'd start with just the 25mm ext tube and see if you need the 500D for small stuff later. The alternative might be the 180mm f3.5 with a 1.4x for reach. Don't know if the AF would be as good as on the 300mm lens though.

wow, very detailed explanation of technical issues. I'm not very good in this area, therefore anybody can really help me out? Normally i can go quite close to butterflies & my main idea is the magnification of the butterfly. Small butterflies can range from 9mm-11mm. After trying the 180mm at 1:1, i realise i cannot help it to be a little shaky.

With the 350D 1.6x crop factor, the focal length multiplies which gives 288mm focal length. If i'm going to shoot with a 1.4 tc, it will give me est 402mm. Handholding most of the time at that focal distance, i'm not too sure if i'm able to do so without shaking. Thus a slight shake might result in blurry outcome. Boosting the shutter up to at lease 1/350 for 288mm or 1/500s for 402mm to prevent hand shake. What happens if i'm under the canopy of the forest where lighting is poor? Boost the ISO on the 350D to 800, noise is rather obvious, hence the only method is to stop down the aperture to less then f/5.6.
I do have a tripod + ballhead which i'm very reluctant to carry with me. It's heavy even if it's a gitzo 6x + a sturdy Nb-2a kangrinpoche ball head.

Therefore my worries will be the lack of lighting in the forest. +2/3 Ev on my flash IS0 400 shutter at 1/350s might not even expose my subject sufficiently. So i'm still very lost at this junction.

For your necessary suggestions please.

Cheers!

On a point of detail tubes result in more depth of field compared to a CU for the same viewfinder crop, offset by a longer exposure time.
CU's have less dof than tubes with a normal exposure time.
For the same shutter speed either results in photographically equal dof.
How well a lens works with a CU, tube or TC is a matter of experiment. For example Leitz make a 100mm macro which needs a dedicated CU to get to 1:1 - and gives probably the best 1:1 quality of any combination in current production.
If the quality of the starting point lens is very high adding tubes and dedicated converters can work very well - which is why Ed can get extremely good quality starting with a 300mm f4 not specifically designed for macro work. If a combination has a reputation for good results among advanced amateurs and pros the reason is usually the reputation is justified.

I think if you're doing 9-11mm butterflies at close to 1:1 you'll need a touch more than the 1/ focal length to be sure of staying sharp, the tripod will be a huge help if only to keep your subject inside the very narrow DOF, even if you freeze motion with flash. The thing to remember is that image magnification multiplies image movement.

If you really do want to go hand held, then the IS feature of the 300mm f4 will help of course, but you'll be further from your subject so flash will be more of an issue for you. It will give you a 36 x 24 mm subject frame with the 500D diopter on your 350D. The 300mm f4 is not exactly lightweight either.

I think the solution there would be off camera flash, possibly with a soft box to even out the lighting. You would be keeping the shutter speed down to your flash sync speed and relying on the flash to freeze motion. High speed sync is a possibility (don't know if your combo allows it) but you lose flash power rapidly, but you'll still need to hold it steady enough so that your subject stays in the very narrow dof. I don't think there's a good solution that doesn't involve a tripod.

Note that all the dimensions in my first post are for a full frame, divide them by 1.6 for your 350D.

Thanks a lot for all the replies.

Comparing side by side, the 300 f/4 weights at 1190gm whereas the 180mm macro weights 1090gm. A 100gm difference. Not too sure if it will affect hand holding over a long period.

I'm leaning towards the 180mm due to shorter working distance comparing to the 300mm which i might need off camera flash . I'm still using the old trust canon 420ex for most of my pictures. I do have a wireless transmitter for off camera flash but isn't it very cumbersome if i'm trekking with all the additional weight?

Thanks!

I'd say that if you are serious about macro work the 180mm can't be beat. But if like me you are doing macro from time to time the 70-200mm works well with tubes. Tubes are great, better that closeup lenses I think. The drawbacks are that you loose a bit of light and AF might be slower. You loose focus at infinity but you already knew that One thing that I always find weird when I use the 70-200mm with tubes is that at one point the zoom ring operates as a focus ring.

I am surprised nobody linked to this very useful table from Bob Atkins :
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm

A useful link that one, though there is at least 1 error in the table the 300mm f4 with the 25mm tube should be 0.37 - 0.09x magnification, the table says 0.24x as max mag, which is the Mag acheived with no tube.