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

01/13/2005 02:39:10 AM · #1

I am thinking getting a new lens to play with. Has anyone used one of these or know anything about them.

I already have the macro twin light MT-24EX for my 180 3.5. If it works well with this lens that will be one more thing I won't have to buy.

Also, this is a manual focus lens. Does anyone know if the in focus light lights with this lens. My eyes are not very good close-up anymore, which is the only reason why I switched to AF in the first place.

Message edited by author 2005-01-13 04:32:16.

01/13/2005 06:43:06 PM · #2

Bump! Does anybody have one of these?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

01/13/2005 06:54:46 PM · #3

I don't know offhand of anyone on the site that shoots with one. Honestly, nearly everything that you can do with that lens can also be accomplished with the 100/2.8 macro with a little ingenuity. I've shot at nearly 5x magnification with the 100/2.8 with very good results. I really don't find much need for magnifications in excess of 2x, though, and when I do I'd rather use a microscope for those subjects. Here...

...is an example of how to achieve high magnification with the 100/2.8. The "auxiliary hardware" used included:
- Canon 50/1.4 lens
- 58mm macro coupler ring
- Canon 2.0x II teleconverter and EF-12 (or EF-25) extension tube combination
Using the above in different ways it's easy to get well above 3x magnification and it's possible to get above 6x.
You probably have most of this equipment already.

01/13/2005 07:10:09 PM · #4

Originally posted by kirbic:

Yes but I hate to even try and imagine what the loss of light is with that combo. This is 2.8 at 5X.

I have a 180 3.5, 2.0X extender and a EF 25 extension tube and have tinkered with that, but the lose of light is tremendous.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

01/13/2005 08:14:23 PM · #5

I think you'll find that even with the MP-E 65mm, you're really not seeing the amount of light you think you might. At high magnification, no matter how you slice it, you're still spreading out light from a small subject area over a large sensor area.
I have no doubt that the MP-E 65mm will produce great results, but I do question whether, one, the resutls will be significantly better than with 100mm plus "accessories" and two, whether it's worth the significant cost for the very few times that really high magnification is called for.
I do a fair amount of macro for both business and pleasure, and don't feel I need the MP-E, and BTW I usually don't need too big an excuse to buy a lens, LOL.

01/13/2005 08:25:20 PM · #6

Originally posted by kirbic:

2.8 is 2.8 whether it is at 5X or on a 400mm lens. You get the same amount of light. It is a standard.

Maybe I'll be the first kid on the block to have one. I want to try one. If I have trouble focusing I can always sell it again on Ebay. Probably make a buck or two in the process.

I can get one for under $700. I think I paid more than that for the Twin Flash.

Message edited by author 2005-01-13 20:27:07.

01/13/2005 08:31:44 PM · #7

Originally posted by nsbca7:

2.8 is 2.8 whether it is at 5X or on a 400mm lens. You get the same amount of light. It is a standard.

You're right, 2.8 is 2.8 is 2.8...but that's just a number that really means nothing as far as how much light is coming through.

at 50mm, 2.8 will open the shutter 17.8 mm and at 400mm, 2.8 will open the shutter 142.8 mm -- See how the latter will let more light in?

01/13/2005 08:59:09 PM · #8

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

2.8 is 2.8 whether it is at 5X or on a 400mm lens. You get the same amount of light. It is a standard.

You're right, 2.8 is 2.8 is 2.8...but that's just a number that really means nothing as far as how much light is coming through.

at 50mm, 2.8 will open the shutter 17.8 mm and at 400mm, 2.8 will open the shutter 142.8 mm -- See how the latter will let more light in?

Wrong.It comes to the same thing. 2.8 is 2.8. When they design a lens they measure apperature size by the amount of light that falls on the film plane or sensor. You get the same amount of light to the sensor with a Sigma 28mm 2.8 lens set at f/8 as you do with a Canon 600 4.0 set at f/8.

The apperature size has nothing to do with the shutter on a DSLR or a SLR. There is some relevence on some rangefinders, but that is not what we are talking about.

Message edited by author 2005-01-13 21:02:15.

NeoScales

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/13/2005 09:28:27 PM · #9

To make focus adjustments, you'll need a tripod mounted rail (or equivalent). The DOF is also a major problem. All the arguing over f2.8 is really academic. At a 5:1 you�ll need to hit an f16 to achieve a DOF of just 1/20th of one millimeter. Also the working distance is very short, and with the cone style lens � you�ll need a good ring/twin light to fill (which you have).

Because of the technical challenges and additional required hardware, it�s not a lens most people want to invest in.

Message edited by author 2005-01-13 21:31:25.

01/13/2005 09:36:04 PM · #10

Originally posted by NeoScales:

I think that I might get by with the tripod and head that I have. Maybe. They are very versatile for macro work. I already own the twin light MT-24EX, so that is no problem either. The only thing I am worried about is whether or not the little green light in my camera will light when I am in focus.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

01/13/2005 11:25:10 PM · #11

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by kirbic:
I think you'll find that even with the MP-E 65mm, you're really not seeing the amount of light you think you might. At high magnification, no matter how you slice it, you're still spreading out light from a small subject area over a large sensor area.

2.8 is 2.8 whether it is at 5X or on a 400mm lens. You get the same amount of light. It is a standard.

Maybe I'll be the first kid on the block to have one. I want to try one. If I have trouble focusing I can always sell it again on Ebay. Probably make a buck or two in the process.

I can get one for under $700. I think I paid more than that for the Twin Flash.

Well, yes, 2.8 is 2.8, but try this. Mount your 100/2.8 macro lens, point it at a white subject, focus on infinity and determine the correct shutter speed @ f/2.8. Now focus to nearest focus (1:1) and note the shutter speed for correct exposure. It has changed. Why? because even though the lens is still f/2.8, the image formed has bee spread over a much wider area.

01/13/2005 11:41:58 PM · #12

How is the same amount of light going to come in if the shutter is opening 17 mm as opposed to 142 millimeters wide? Maybe I'm having a hard time visualizing it, but it seems impossible to me.

01/14/2005 12:00:55 AM · #13

Originally posted by kirbic:

I just tried your experiment to prove a point. It doesn't change. If you are getting varied results it is because you have not controlled your envirement.

This is what I did:
With a 180 f/3.5 macro lens ( I do not own the 100 macro) set in av mode f/3.5, ISO 1600, from 12 feet aimed at a white door indoors in MF and focused. Shutter speed 1/60 sec.

All settings the same at 1:1 magnification from 18 inches (closest focus distance) aimed at the same white door in MF and focused. Shutter speed 1/60 sec.

In doing this you must make sure you do not create shadows or otherwise block out the light.

For a better understanding you might try reading "The Camera" by Ansel Adams. Or go
here for a better understanding of why a longer lens has a wider opening at the same f/stop then a shorter lens yet allows the same amount of light into the camera.

Once you figure it out it is simple.

01/14/2005 12:02:24 AM · #14

Originally posted by deapee:

How is the same amount of light going to come in if the shutter is opening 17 mm as opposed to 142 millimeters wide? Maybe I'm having a hard time visualizing it, but it seems impossible to me.

And deapee, again it has nothing to do with the shutter.

01/14/2005 12:03:47 AM · #15

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by deapee:
How is the same amount of light going to come in if the shutter is opening 17 mm as opposed to 142 millimeters wide? Maybe I'm having a hard time visualizing it, but it seems impossible to me.

And deapee, again it has nothing to do with the shutter.

When did I ask you to repeat something you already said?

01/14/2005 12:10:32 AM · #16

Originally posted by deapee:

Right here you metioned the shutter also. The shutter opens the same width no matter what lens you have attached to the camera. This is not about the shutter, but the aperature.

01/14/2005 01:28:24 AM · #17

Bump.

Back on track, and I need to ask again, does anyone have any experience with this lens. I would like to buy one but I need to know if the camera will aknowledge that the image is in focus. This is a manual focus lens and my eyes are not good enough to focus without the cameras help.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

01/14/2005 08:16:02 AM · #18

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

2.8 is 2.8 whether it is at 5X or on a 400mm lens. You get the same amount of light. It is a standard.

You're right, 2.8 is 2.8 is 2.8...but that's just a number that really means nothing as far as how much light is coming through.

at 50mm, 2.8 will open the shutter 17.8 mm and at 400mm, 2.8 will open the shutter 142.8 mm -- See how the latter will let more light in?

Right here you metioned the shutter also. The shutter opens the same width no matter what lens you have attached to the camera. This is not about the shutter, but the aperature.

You just posted two quotes from my ORIGINAL reply. I did not say the same thing twice. The second time I said I was confused and having a hard time picturing it. If you don't want to help me understand it more, then don't post. If you do then help. Otherwise, don't come off like you're God's gift to photography -- everyone needs a little help and has some questions. You're trying to get your question answered and I was hoping to get mine as well. But I won't be offended if nobody answers it.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

01/14/2005 08:28:37 AM · #19

the size of the aperture opening changes with the focal length of the lense at any given f:stop. the shutter opening is always the same.

01/14/2005 10:53:21 AM · #20

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

2.8 is 2.8 whether it is at 5X or on a 400mm lens. You get the same amount of light. It is a standard.

You're right, 2.8 is 2.8 is 2.8...but that's just a number that really means nothing as far as how much light is coming through.

at 50mm, 2.8 will open the shutter 17.8 mm and at 400mm, 2.8 will open the shutter 142.8 mm -- See how the latter will let more light in?

Right here you metioned the shutter also. The shutter opens the same width no matter what lens you have attached to the camera. This is not about the shutter, but the aperature.

You just posted two quotes from my ORIGINAL reply. I did not say the same thing twice. The second time I said I was confused and having a hard time picturing it. If you don't want to help me understand it more, then don't post. If you do then help. Otherwise, don't come off like you're God's gift to photography -- everyone needs a little help and has some questions. You're trying to get your question answered and I was hoping to get mine as well. But I won't be offended if nobody answers it.

Sorry deapee, it just sounded like you were argueing your point.

Then again I did leave this to help you understand:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

For a better understanding you might try reading "The Camera" by Ansel Adams. Or go
here for a better understanding of why a longer lens has a wider opening at the same f/stop then a shorter lens yet allows the same amount of light into the camera.

Once you figure it out it is simple.

Not trying to come off smug, but no one has answered my question yet and that is the reason I posted this thread.

NeoScales

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/14/2005 11:10:53 AM · #21

I'm working on getting an answer to your question. I have a friend in L.A. that uses that lens, sent your question off to him. I'll have an answer sometime today...

audioaltima

Canon EOS-10D

01/14/2005 01:53:35 PM · #22

I own the MP-E lens and also use it along with my MT-24ex twinlite. It is a manual only focus lens, and I do not believe the focus confirm light goes on when you hit focus either. I can check later tonight to be sure though.

Generally when shooting with this lens the first thing I determine is the level of magnification I'm looking to get. Then I dial that into the lens and move in to take the image. I focus by slowly rocking my arms or body back and forth until I hit focus on what I want. It takes some getting used to, but eventually I got pretty good at it.

DOF is a problem with this lens, but often it can be an artistic blessing. Flower shots, for example, can be made to look awesome with only a paper thin DOF. Since you'll be using the twinlite, you can just throw the camera in manual mode and set it to 1/200 sec and an aperture between f8-f16 and from there just have to worry about hitting your focus.

I can get some example photos up tonight if you'd like, but for now I can link to a few shots I've done with the lens:

//www.deviantart.com/view/7004399/
//www.deviantart.com/view/8878529/
//www.deviantart.com/view/7034481/
//www.deviantart.com/view/6995154/
//www.deviantart.com/view/6994202/
//www.deviantart.com/view/6856089/
//www.deviantart.com/view/6793348/

Any other questions, let me know and I'll do my best to answer or reanswer :)