Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens, or...

Are you already into macro photography or is it something you think you might be interested in?
 
I've done it using a microscope which is just a freaking pain in the backside and I'm wanting much greater magnification (insect eyes, etc). I'm thinking of starting with the MP-E and Manfrotto 454 micro-adjustment slider and eventually adding a bellows and Canon MT-24EX flash.

I may begin selling off my film equipment to fund this as I have taken four shots total on film since I went digital a year ago. I have a Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 if you'd like to add to the piggy bank :D

I should add - I've played around with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM macro lens and it won't cut it for me, if I'm going to be spending a considerable amount of money I want something offering considerably better magnification than what I'm currently using.
 
Last edited:
Have you thought about starting off with some extension tubes? What lenses do you currently own?
 
Extension tubes don't offer THAT much magnification. I have the 18-55mm kit lens (which I've considered modding, if you remove the front element it makes a semi decent macro lens), 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 Di VC USD and Canon 50mm f/1.8 (soon to be Sigma f/1.4 :D). Extension tube magnification is along the lines of (x+y)/y where x is the focal length added by the extension tubes and y is the focal length of the lens. The kit lens offers a maximum magnification of 0.34x at 55mm, adding a 12mm and 25mm extension tube gives 1.67x magnification to the 0.34x which is still only a total of 0.57x? I've either completely cocked up the maths or I'm still only half way to 1:1 macro territory, never mind 5:1.

Things just get worse with the other lenses, eg the 50mm has a magnification of 0.15x which with a 12mm and 25mm extension tube works out to 0.26x
 
Oj0 said:
Extension tubes don't offer THAT much magnification. I have the 18-55mm kit lens (which I've considered modding, if you remove the front element it makes a semi decent macro lens), 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 Di VC USD and Canon 50mm f/1.8 (soon to be Sigma f/1.4 :D). Extension tube magnification is along the lines of (x+y)/y where x is the focal length added by the extension tubes and y is the focal length of the lens. The kit lens offers a maximum magnification of 0.34x at 55mm, adding a 12mm and 25mm extension tube gives 1.67x magnification to the 0.34x which is still only a total of 0.57x? I've either completely cocked up the maths or I'm still only half way to 1:1 macro territory, never mind 5:1.

Things just get worse with the other lenses, eg the 50mm has a magnification of 0.15x which with a 12mm and 25mm extension tube works out to 0.26x
Click to expand...

Punch the digits into the calculator at the bottom of the page: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm

I got 1.01x magnification for the kit lens and 0.89x for the 50mm.

AFAIK you can keep stacking tubes.
 
Thanks for the link. Aren't extension tubes supposed to DECREASE the minimum focusing distance? I've seen videos of people going overboard with them and ending up with a lens that can only focus within itself, yet the more extension I add the FURTHER the nearest focusing distance? But anyway, in order to match up to the magnification of the macro lens I'd need over a quarter meter of extension tubes :D
 
Oj0 said:
I've done it using a microscope which is just a freaking pain in the backside and I'm wanting much greater magnification (insect eyes, etc). I'm thinking of starting with the MP-E and Manfrotto 454 micro-adjustment slider <snip>
Click to expand...

I have the Manfrotto 454, and I am not satisfied with it when applied to greater than 1.0x magnification. Short version: the 454 has an awful lot of slack in the mechanism. This causes the entire frame to shift side-to-side while you are advancing the screw. The supplied means of taking up this slack is ineffective, as it causes binding (sticking) if you tighten it enough to keep it moving in a straight line. In other words, I found it frustrating to use for focus stacking.

I have not evaluated the other options (there is a Really Right Stuff one, and the Novoflex), but I went the other way and built my own one using industrial linear guides. Any decade now I'll finish my blog post on this topic ... :)

The MP-E is a good (if pricey) option, but you will still need some kind of focusing rail.

You might want to try a reverse-mounting ring. I have gotten pretty decent performance out of a Nikkor 35 mm f/1.8 AF-S lens reverse-mounted with a 12.5 mm extension tube. That gives me 2.8x magnification, with fairly benign artefacts even when focus stacking. You can increase magnification by using an even wider angle lens (reverse mounted), but if the pupil ratio is too far from 1.0 you will run into insurmountable diffraction softening. (or you can add more extension for greater magnification, but at least adding extension has a predictable effect on effective aperture and thus diffraction softening).

One last point: I suspect that working distance will always be a problem at the magnification levels you are considering.
 
Could it be that just your sample of the Manfrotto 454 was bad? I've heard a few good things about them, but obviously when the time comes I'll want to try before I buy. I've considered reversing the lens and extension tubes, but I'd rather just get a dedicated macro lens.

How do you think working distance will be a problem? What's wrong with a 40mm (at 5x magnification) working distance?
 
Oj0 said:
Could it be that just your sample of the Manfrotto 454 was bad?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is possible, but I suspect that it is a design issue. Or I happened to be using it incorrectly :)

According to the manual, you have to tighten the locking knob after adjusting the slide. In other words, for taking a series of shots for focus stacking, you would have to a) loosen locking knob, b) turn leadscrew to advance the slide, c) tighten the locking knob between every shot. Since the degree of tightening you apply to the locking knob also induces a variable side-to-side shift, the manual's method is tedious and "unstable".

Leaving the locking knob loose enough to keep on advancing the leadscrew without touching the locking knob (but still as tight as possible) results in two outcomes: a) locking knob tight enough to make the leadscrew bind a bit, i.e., it becomes hard to obtain repeatable small incremental movements, or b) locking knob loose enough to obtain smooth movements, but then there is noticeable slop (sideways or up-down movement).

Having subsequently spent quite a while researching linear stages, and building a couple, I am of the opinion that the 454's design (using the locking knob to apply pressure directly to the leadscrew, while having far too much clearance between the two dovetail surfaces) is ill-suited to precise movement. The design is perfect for larger scale work, say between 0.5x and 1.0x, because the quick-release mechanism is quite clever (i.e., using a single dovetail slide for both quick adjustment and fine adjustment); it works like a charm when doing flower macro shots, for example.

I am probably being overly critical of the 454, but I found that it was a little bit too frustrating to work with at higher magnification (>1.0x) . My home-made focusing rail uses a leadscrew with a 0.254 mm (yeah, it is actually imperial) lead, meaning that roughly four turns of that screw are required to obtain the same displacement (1 mm) as one revolution of the 454's leadscrew. This makes it significantly easier to obtain the small movements (50 micron or less) I found necessary to obtain good results at 2.8x magnification.


Oj0 said:
I've heard a few good things about them, but obviously when the time comes I'll want to try before I buy. I've considered reversing the lens and extension tubes, but I'd rather just get a dedicated macro lens.

How do you think working distance will be a problem? What's wrong with a 40mm (at 5x magnification) working distance?
Click to expand...

No, I am satisfied with a 40 mm working distance --- this is roughly what I get with my reversed set-up. You are just going to have trouble with skittish critters like dragonflies at that distance :)
Either way, you appear to be comfortable with the working distance limitations, so I shall say no more on the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X