Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens

"DaveS7" <dave_scenik7.DeleteThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LFcOi.7195$gC2.4780@trndny09...
> I'm coming close to the point where I'll be able to buy an EOS-5D.
> I really love macro shots of small subjects such as insects.
> Using The Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens, would I be able to fill the
> entire image with a .25 inch (1/4 inch)
> subject at the closest focus distance from the subject? If not, what would
> be the smallest subject that would fill the entire image?
> Does anyone know of a website where I could see this kind of info in
> understandable language?
> Thanks.

http://www.tfrog93.com/digitals/lenses/100mm/100mm.htm

I really enjoyed that lens...

dwight
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:23:36 -0400, "Mark B." <mbohntrash54 RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

>"DaveS7" <dave_scenik7 RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:LFcOi.7195$gC2.4780@trndny09...
>> I'm coming close to the point where I'll be able to buy an EOS-5D.
>> I really love macro shots of small subjects such as insects.
>> Using The Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens, would I be able to fill the
>> entire image with a .25 inch (1/4 inch)
>> subject at the closest focus distance from the subject? If not, what would
>> be the smallest subject that would fill the entire image?
>> Does anyone know of a website where I could see this kind of info in
>> understandable language?
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>The Canon 100mm macro allows 1:1, or life size close-up. What this means is
>the you can can fill the frame with something the same size as the sensor,
>roughly 36mm x 24mm (roughly 1.4 x 0.94 inch).
>
>Mark
>

Good luck trying to get any respectable DOF out of any dslr macro lens. Don't
even bother hoping to use available-light only at smaller apertures when you do.
Not even the best dslr out there has clean ISOs high enough for that. Macro
photography is where any decent smallest-sensor P&S camera is the clear winner
over ANY dslr. P&S cameras beat the dslr for macro photography by a huge margin.
You'll do fine if all you are trying to focus on is the face of a stamp or coin
with a dslr + macro setup, but only if that surface is perfectly parallel to the
plane of the sensor. Be off by just a few degrees and you can kiss any focus at
one of the edges goodbye.

Here's a couple links that you will need if you go the dslr route for macro
photography:

http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/combinezm.htm
http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html

Keep them handy, bookmark them now.

Make sure your dslr has advanced focus-bracketing capability too in order to
make use of these post-processing methods to get any respectable DOF in your
photos. You'll need at least 5 or more focus-bracketing steps for shallower
subjects, preferable if you can set a greater amount of focus-steps on your
camera that you'll need for anything deeper than 1/2 inch. Or mount your dslr on
a focusing rail for each and every photo. Then adjust each focal-plane depth
manually for every frame that you'll have to take for stacking with the
aforementioned programs. Don't forget to calculate how many focal planes you'll
need to record to adequately cover the DOF available at your chosen f-stop for
the full depth of your subject.

Oh wait, that's right, only P&S cameras that can run CHDK are capable of doing
the fully automated focus-bracketing required for something like this, if you're
not going to use a the slow, manual, focusing-rail method.

Well, good luck anyway, you're going to need it. And try to not think too often
about how much money that you just spent going backward in macro-photography
capability. That's going to bother you much more than trying to get any DOF out
of it. Like a recurring nightmare every time you wonder why that insect leg or
antenna was out of focus, that petal and that stamen, or that gill and that fin,
again, and again, and again in every photo that you will ever try to take.

Been there, done that. Luckily it was a round-trip ticket when I finally
wizened-up and realized that I paid much more for much less. The dslr
macro-photography land is a fun place to visit (fun, in a "good thing I don't
live here" sort of way) but I sure wouldn't ever go back again. Nothing there is
in focus enough except for a few meager bits on everything you look at. Like
trying to read a For-Sale sign that said "F - l ". Another good analogy: the
amount of useful recorded information in dslr macro-photography is equivalent in
trying to watch a movie recorded at 1 frame every 2 minutes then played back at
the same frame-rate, just as enjoyable. I quickly walked out of that pathetic
movie and demanded my money back.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

"DaveS7" <dave_scenik7 RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LFcOi.7195$gC2.4780@trndny09...
> I'm coming close to the point where I'll be able to buy an EOS-5D.
> I really love macro shots of small subjects such as insects.
> Using The Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens, would I be able to fill the
> entire image with a .25 inch (1/4 inch)
> subject at the closest focus distance from the subject? If not, what would
> be the smallest subject that would fill the entire image?
> Does anyone know of a website where I could see this kind of info in
> understandable language?
> Thanks.
>
As this lens produces an image which is the same size as the subject, the
smallest subject would be the same height as the sensor. If you expect to
get a frame filling shot from a subject which is only 1/4 inch high, your
only solution is to enlarge the captured image to suit your needs.

Don't expect much depth of field though.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

On Oct 7, 7:52 pm, MacroMania <psw....RemoveThis@spamblock.org> wrote:
>
> Macro
> photography is where any decent smallest-sensor P&S camera is the clear winner
> over ANY dslr.

Hey, you've said the same thing about every type of photography.
But at least this troll post had some useful info in it.

Yes, macro photography is a challenge with a DSLR or any camera.
Getting enough light on the subject and getting adequate DOF are the
two biggest hurdles.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

"Mark B." <mbohntrash54.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GO6dnSRSEKoLwZTanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "DaveS7" <dave_scenik7.RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:LFcOi.7195$gC2.4780@trndny09...
>> I'm coming close to the point where I'll be able to buy an EOS-5D.
>> I really love macro shots of small subjects such as insects.
>> Using The Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens, would I be able to fill the
>> entire image with a .25 inch (1/4 inch)
>> subject at the closest focus distance from the subject? If not, what
>> would be the smallest subject that would fill the entire image?
>> Does anyone know of a website where I could see this kind of info in
>> understandable language?
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> The Canon 100mm macro allows 1:1, or life size close-up. What this means
> is the you can can fill the frame with something the same size as the
> sensor, roughly 36mm x 24mm (roughly 1.4 x 0.94 inch).
>
> Mark
>

Thanks!
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

"DaveS7" <dave_scenik7.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote:

> I'm coming close to the point where I'll be able to buy an EOS-5D.
> I really love macro shots of small subjects such as insects.
> Using The Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens, would I be able to fill
> the entire image with a .25 inch (1/4 inch)
> subject at the closest focus distance from the subject? If not, what
> would be the smallest subject that would fill the entire image?
> Does anyone know of a website where I could see this kind of info in
> understandable language?
> Thanks.

As mark has pointed out, you can't get better than 1:1 with the 100mm
macro. For that, you need Canon's MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro and a macro
light. I recommend the Canon Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX

Here's some samples. Mostly with the 65mm but some with the 180mm. EXIF is
attached.
http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/macro/bugs/
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

"MacroMania" <pswins.RemoveThis@spamblock.org> wrote in message
news:lgpig394eh0id2691jv21o8bq7580tulh1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:23:36 -0400, "Mark B." <mbohntrash54.RemoveThis@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"DaveS7" <dave_scenik7.RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:LFcOi.7195$gC2.4780@trndny09...
>>> I'm coming close to the point where I'll be able to buy an EOS-5D.
>>> I really love macro shots of small subjects such as insects.
>>> Using The Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens, would I be able to fill the
>>> entire image with a .25 inch (1/4 inch)
>>> subject at the closest focus distance from the subject? If not, what
>>> would
>>> be the smallest subject that would fill the entire image?
>>> Does anyone know of a website where I could see this kind of info in
>>> understandable language?
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>The Canon 100mm macro allows 1:1, or life size close-up. What this means
>>is
>>the you can can fill the frame with something the same size as the sensor,
>>roughly 36mm x 24mm (roughly 1.4 x 0.94 inch).
>>
>>Mark
>>
>
> Good luck trying to get any respectable DOF out of any dslr macro lens.
> Don't
> even bother hoping to use available-light only at smaller apertures when
> you do.
> Not even the best dslr out there has clean ISOs high enough for that.
> Macro
> photography is where any decent smallest-sensor P&S camera is the clear
> winner
> over ANY dslr. P&S cameras beat the dslr for macro photography by a huge
> margin.
> You'll do fine if all you are trying to focus on is the face of a stamp or
> coin
> with a dslr + macro setup, but only if that surface is perfectly parallel
> to the
> plane of the sensor. Be off by just a few degrees and you can kiss any
> focus at
> one of the edges goodbye.
>
> Here's a couple links that you will need if you go the dslr route for
> macro
> photography:
>
> http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/combinezm.htm
> http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html
>
> Keep them handy, bookmark them now.
>
> Make sure your dslr has advanced focus-bracketing capability too in order
> to
> make use of these post-processing methods to get any respectable DOF in
> your
> photos. You'll need at least 5 or more focus-bracketing steps for
> shallower
> subjects, preferable if you can set a greater amount of focus-steps on
> your
> camera that you'll need for anything deeper than 1/2 inch. Or mount your
> dslr on
> a focusing rail for each and every photo. Then adjust each focal-plane
> depth
> manually for every frame that you'll have to take for stacking with the
> aforementioned programs. Don't forget to calculate how many focal planes
> you'll
> need to record to adequately cover the DOF available at your chosen f-stop
> for
> the full depth of your subject.
>
> Oh wait, that's right, only P&S cameras that can run CHDK are capable of
> doing
> the fully automated focus-bracketing required for something like this, if
> you're
> not going to use a the slow, manual, focusing-rail method.
>
> Well, good luck anyway, you're going to need it. And try to not think too
> often
> about how much money that you just spent going backward in
> macro-photography
> capability. That's going to bother you much more than trying to get any
> DOF out
> of it. Like a recurring nightmare every time you wonder why that insect
> leg or
> antenna was out of focus, that petal and that stamen, or that gill and
> that fin,
> again, and again, and again in every photo that you will ever try to take.
>
> Been there, done that. Luckily it was a round-trip ticket when I finally
> wizened-up and realized that I paid much more for much less. The dslr
> macro-photography land is a fun place to visit (fun, in a "good thing I
> don't
> live here" sort of way) but I sure wouldn't ever go back again. Nothing
> there is
> in focus enough except for a few meager bits on everything you look at.
> Like
> trying to read a For-Sale sign that said "F - l ". Another good analogy:
> the
> amount of useful recorded information in dslr macro-photography is
> equivalent in
> trying to watch a movie recorded at 1 frame every 2 minutes then played
> back at
> the same frame-rate, just as enjoyable. I quickly walked out of that
> pathetic
> movie and demanded my money back.
>

What 10 MP or better P&S cameras would be best for Macro work?
What relative improvement in DOF would they provide? In other words, what
percentage increase in DOF
would be realized?
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

"Mardon" <mgb72mgb DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99C3ACAA3B90Cmgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78...
> "DaveS7" <dave_scenik7 DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm coming close to the point where I'll be able to buy an EOS-5D.
>> I really love macro shots of small subjects such as insects.
>> Using The Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens, would I be able to fill
>> the entire image with a .25 inch (1/4 inch)
>> subject at the closest focus distance from the subject? If not, what
>> would be the smallest subject that would fill the entire image?
>> Does anyone know of a website where I could see this kind of info in
>> understandable language?
>> Thanks.
>
> As mark has pointed out, you can't get better than 1:1 with the 100mm
> macro. For that, you need Canon's MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro and a macro
> light. I recommend the Canon Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX
>
> Here's some samples. Mostly with the 65mm but some with the 180mm. EXIF
> is
> attached.
> http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/macro/bugs/

Thanks! The photos were very helpful!
Do you think MacroMania's comments about P&S cameras as a better choice for
macros are correct?

He also says:
"Make sure your dslr has advanced focus-bracketing capability too in order
to
make use of these post-processing methods to get any respectable DOF in your
photos. You'll need at least 5 or more focus-bracketing steps for shallower
subjects"

Does the EOS 5D have advanced focus-bracketing capability?
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

"DaveS7" <dave_scenik7.DeleteThis@verizon.net> wrote:

>> http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/macro/bugs/
>
> Thanks! The photos were very helpful!
> Do you think MacroMania's comments about P&S cameras as a better
> choice for macros are correct?
>
> He also says:
> "Make sure your dslr has advanced focus-bracketing capability too in
> order to
> make use of these post-processing methods to get any respectable DOF
> in your photos. You'll need at least 5 or more focus-bracketing steps
> for shallower subjects"
>
> Does the EOS 5D have advanced focus-bracketing capability?

Everybody has their own opinion about things. That's especially true in
these Usenet photo groups. It's a good place to gather opinions but don't
base a purchase decision solely on what you read here. As I understand it,
MacroMania's entire point is that most macro photos don't have sufficient
depth of field for his tastes. You can see the shallow depth of field in
the photos on my web page that I referred you to. He offers two solutions:
(1) use a P&S camera or (2) use focus bracketing. The reason that P&S
cameras have greater DOF is that they have tiny sensors compared to most
DSLRs. Other things being equal, the smaller the sensor, the greater the
depth of field. The 5D is a 'full frame' sensor, so it is way larger than
any P&S camera and will have a smaller depth of field than even say a Canon
40D. BUT remember, the larger sensor has tons of advantages. It will
produce a much better image at higher ISO than any P&S. IMO, no P&S can
compare to a dSLR for quality. MacroMania's other suggestion is focus
bracketing. That means taking several images focused on different focal
planes and then combining them into a single image with more depth of
field. It's sort of like HDR photography that takes several images at
different exposure levels and combines them into a single high dynamic
range image or a tone-mapped image. I've never tried focus bracketing. I
have no doubt that it works in some situations. If there is movement of
the subject between shots, it would not work and insects can move a lot,
especially when a flash fires. Personally I don't mind the shallow depth
of field in macro. You just need to learn to manage it when you shot. Get
as much of the important subject as you can in a single focal plane and
you'll be OK. The larger the magnification, the more problematic DOF
becomes. At 5x with the 65mm lens it can be tricky. At 1x with a 100mm
lens, it's not so bad.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

DaveS7 wrote:

> What 10 MP or better P&S cameras would be best for Macro work?
> What relative improvement in DOF would they provide? In other words,
> what percentage increase in DOF would be realized?

The same factor used to calculate 35mm equivalent field of view. So a
1-1/8 sensor compact at 100mm eq. uses 20mm x 5 with 5x the DOF of 35mm
full frame & an APS DSLR 66mm x 1.5. However, a typical compact camera
only stops down to about f/8 or f/11 & a dedicated SLR macro lens can
stop down to f/57 or even f/64 ...and the compact becomes diffraction
limited around f/5.6 or f/8 where the DSLR doesn't break that barrier
till around f/11 or f/16 so frankly I don't know where that all washes
out, probably about the same.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

"DaveS7" <dave_scenik7 DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote:
> Do you think MacroMania's comments about P&S cameras as a better choice
> for macros are correct?

Been there, done that. Absolutely not. P&S cameras in macro mode tend to
have gross distortion and other infelicities (and there's enormous variation
between cameras). They're nowhere near as good as a dSLR with a good macro
lens for critical work.

> He also says:
> "Make sure your dslr has advanced focus-bracketing capability too in order
> to
> make use of these post-processing methods to get any respectable DOF in
> your
> photos. You'll need at least 5 or more focus-bracketing steps for
> shallower
> subjects"
>
> Does the EOS 5D have advanced focus-bracketing capability?

No, but it's got the same maximum DOF as a P&S. You just have to stop down
further. It's a myth that P&S cameras have "more DOF"; the maximum DOF is
the same, but said maximum DOF occurs at a smaller f stop in a dSLR than it
does in a P&S.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:48:02 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl RemoveThis @gol.com> wrote:

>
>"DaveS7" <dave_scenik7 RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote:
>> Do you think MacroMania's comments about P&S cameras as a better choice
>> for macros are correct?
>
>Been there, done that. Absolutely not. P&S cameras in macro mode tend to
>have gross distortion and other infelicities (and there's enormous variation
>between cameras). They're nowhere near as good as a dSLR with a good macro
>lens for critical work.
>
>> He also says:
>> "Make sure your dslr has advanced focus-bracketing capability too in order
>> to
>> make use of these post-processing methods to get any respectable DOF in
>> your
>> photos. You'll need at least 5 or more focus-bracketing steps for
>> shallower
>> subjects"
>>
>> Does the EOS 5D have advanced focus-bracketing capability?
>
>No, but it's got the same maximum DOF as a P&S. You just have to stop down
>further. It's a myth that P&S cameras have "more DOF"; the maximum DOF is
>the same, but said maximum DOF occurs at a smaller f stop in a dSLR than it
>does in a P&S.
>
>http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>

Wow, look at all the same blatant lies being told by the dslr gang again to
justify their purchases. It does warm the cockles, they are consistent in their
misinformation and lies, if nothing else.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens 

"Mardon" <mgb72mgb.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99C468AA2C3mgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78...
> "DaveS7" <dave_scenik7.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.JustPhotos.ca/galleries/macro/bugs/
>>
>> Thanks! The photos were very helpful!
>> Do you think MacroMania's comments about P&S cameras as a better
>> choice for macros are correct?
>>
>> He also says:
>> "Make sure your dslr has advanced focus-bracketing capability too in
>> order to
>> make use of these post-processing methods to get any respectable DOF
>> in your photos. You'll need at least 5 or more focus-bracketing steps
>> for shallower subjects"
>>
>> Does the EOS 5D have advanced focus-bracketing capability?
>
> Everybody has their own opinion about things. That's especially true in
> these Usenet photo groups. It's a good place to gather opinions but don't
> base a purchase decision solely on what you read here. As I understand
> it,
> MacroMania's entire point is that most macro photos don't have sufficient
> depth of field for his tastes. You can see the shallow depth of field in
> the photos on my web page that I referred you to. He offers two
> solutions:
> (1) use a P&S camera or (2) use focus bracketing. The reason that P&S
> cameras have greater DOF is that they have tiny sensors compared to most
> DSLRs. Other things being equal, the smaller the sensor, the greater the
> depth of field. The 5D is a 'full frame' sensor, so it is way larger than
> any P&S camera and will have a smaller depth of field than even say a
> Canon
> 40D. BUT remember, the larger sensor has tons of advantages. It will
> produce a much better image at higher ISO than any P&S. IMO, no P&S can
> compare to a dSLR for quality. MacroMania's other suggestion is focus
> bracketing. That means taking several images focused on different focal
> planes and then combining them into a single image with more depth of
> field. It's sort of like HDR photography that takes several images at
> different exposure levels and combines them into a single high dynamic
> range image or a tone-mapped image. I've never tried focus bracketing. I
> have no doubt that it works in some situations. If there is movement of
> the subject between shots, it would not work and insects can move a lot,
> especially when a flash fires. Personally I don't mind the shallow depth
> of field in macro. You just need to learn to manage it when you shot.
> Get
> as much of the important subject as you can in a single focal plane and
> you'll be OK. The larger the magnification, the more problematic DOF
> becomes. At 5x with the 65mm lens it can be tricky. At 1x with a 100mm
> lens, it's not so bad.

Thanks again for taking the trouble give such excellent replies!

Do you know what magnification and lens you used for this photo:
http://www.justphotos.ca/galleries/macro/bugs/images/038060.jpg

I like that one a lot!
 >> Stay informed about: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens