My first Macro shots - EF 100 f/2.8

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/18/2006 10:04:24 AM · #1

I bought a Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro lens last week and tried it yesterday to see how well it does. I have never shot anything real macro before so I still have lots to learn.

The lens is fantastic. I'm so incredibly surprised how sharp it is - even just as a regular prime 100mm lens. I have the 70-200 f/2.8IS "L" but this lens is just as good at 100.

In the first shot below I handheld with my left hand a 50mm f/1.8 II reversed in front of the 100/2.8. I then handheld all of this with my right hand and took this picture of a tiny tiny bug that I found sitting on the toilet roll in my hotel room. Only light was a camera mounted EX580 flash.

I do realize of course that DOF is way too shallow but will try with a smaller aperture next time.

The next shot is a shot of my wife's eye. I wasn't even that close (as you can see in the third picture which is the unedited & uncropped version"). I only used a camera mounted EX580 flash with omnibounce (as you unfortunately can see the reflection of in her eye).

I'm totally blown away - everyone should have one of these in their bag!

Now I just have to go out and learn how to take a variety of macro shots.

Message edited by author 2006-03-18 10:11:34.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

03/18/2006 11:45:24 AM · #2

It really is a fantastic lens - probably the favourite one I own :)

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

03/18/2006 11:58:23 AM · #3

I would say the 100mm macros beat out the 70-200's, just incredible really. Nice shots too, try to stop down as much as possible when doing macro. I find that you almost need to use macro flashes to get enough light (i don't have them). It also helps to be shooting outside on a really sunny day and still use some flash fill.

Jacko

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

03/18/2006 12:32:48 PM · #4

Macro lenses are amazing for what you pay for them. I love my Sigma 105 F2.8.

C-town driver

Canon EOS-30D

03/18/2006 01:36:00 PM · #5

I never shoot macro, so please excuse my newbie question. But what does the handholding of the 50mm do for the shot?

Edit: Fantastic shots BTW. The macro of your wife's eye is quite amazing in detail!

Message edited by author 2006-03-18 13:37:22.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

03/18/2006 02:21:39 PM · #6

the macro lens alone will give up to 1:1 magnification. adding a reversed lens in front of it can give higher than 1:1 magnification.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

03/18/2006 02:29:37 PM · #7

Originally posted by C-town driver:

But what does the handholding of the 50mm do for the shot?

Thanks for the comments!

The handholding of the 50mm makes it work like a microscope almost. You can buy fittings for this so you can mount the 50mm lens in reverse in front of a macro lens (or any other lens for that sake).

You then adjust aperture on the lens that is mnted directly on the camera. The aperture on the 50mm will be wide open by default. Focus is usually less than 2" from the subject.

Here's a picture of my set-up...

C-town driver

Canon EOS-30D

03/18/2006 07:23:51 PM · #8

Wow, I learned something new today :) That is REALLY cool. Is there some kind of guidline as to what kind of lenses that would work with?

Jacko

03/18/2006 09:23:21 PM · #9

A good way to figure out magnification is to divide the focal length of the main lens (on the camera) by the focal lengh of the reversed lens. A 50mm lens reversed in front of a 100m lens will give you a 2:1 magnification.

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

03/18/2006 10:04:02 PM · #10

Originally posted by C-town driver:

But what does the handholding of the 50mm do for the shot?

You don't "need" to handhold the lens.

For around 10 bucks you can get a coupling ring that screws the lenses together without light leaks.

cheers,
bazz.

riolobo

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/18/2006 11:19:28 PM · #11

In a pinch I've handheld a reversed lens against the camera body successfully...not in sunlight, though.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

03/19/2006 02:38:52 AM · #12

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Originally posted by C-town driver:
But what does the handholding of the 50mm do for the shot?

You don't "need" to handhold the lens.

For around 10 bucks you can get a coupling ring that screws the lenses together without light leaks.

cheers,
bazz.

Masking tape is a lot cheaper, although a lot less durable.

JRalston

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/19/2006 05:27:42 AM · #13

Does anyone have a link to someone who sells the reversal ring?

hotpasta

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/19/2006 07:07:19 AM · #14

That's it...I am going to get one of those coupling rings tomorrow!

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

03/19/2006 09:15:03 AM · #15

masking tape is cheaper right up until the point that you drop the 50mm.

Spring for the mounting ring...

03/19/2006 09:42:22 AM · #16

All you need really is a double male ring with filter threads the size of your lenses.

But they are very cheap to buy. Here are some options:

Macro Couplers

Here's an article:
All you really need to know about Reverse-mounted lenses

Message edited by author 2006-03-19 09:43:00.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/19/2006 11:12:26 AM · #17

Originally posted by eschelar:

masking tape is cheaper right up until the point that you drop the 50mm.

Spring for the mounting ring...

And that's that duct tape is for!

JRalston

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/19/2006 03:27:28 PM · #18

Originally posted by Are_62:

Thanks :)

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/19/2006 04:10:58 PM · #19

Originally posted by Are_62:

I got to see kirbic's 5D up close yesterday. What a treat. Finally, a "real" camera in dSLR with a full framed CCD where the lens behavior for their focal lengths work EXACTLY the way they are supposed to. No more of this 35mm "equivalent" silliness. Your 5D is a great camera and will serve you well. I'm jealous.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/19/2006 04:42:42 PM · #20

Originally posted by Are_62:

That one so impressed me, I had to experiment a little last night:

I used my Sigma 28-80 which has a macro setting but it's not really a macro lens I don't think. I have a 4x magnifier that I just held about an inch or so from my eye. Not nearly as sharp and I had to process it a bit to get it that sharp.

Thanks Are_62, for adding yet another piece of equipment that I "must have". Great samples!